Candace Man-Ying Mak

The plaintiffs commenced an action for $4,000,000 in damages following a fire at their premises in 2013.

The moving defendants sought to dismiss the action due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a 2024 interlocutory timetable order and for inordinate delay under Rule 24.01.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for their non-compliance and for the over 11-year delay since the action was commenced.

Concluding that the delay caused non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, the court dismissed the action and denied the cross-motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action, which sought repayment of a $153,000 loan, was dismissed after five years of inactivity.

The court applied the contextual four-factor test from Scaini v. Prochnicki, accepting the plaintiff's explanation that health issues caused the delay and finding no prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside, with no order as to costs.

The defendant bank brought a motion for security for costs against the self-represented plaintiff, who resided in Alberta and had no assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff's action alleged negligence and breach of duty of care arising from a mortgage pre-approval for a real estate transaction she failed to close.

The court found the defendant met the initial onus under Rule 56.01, and the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success at trial.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in installments totaling $51,600.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant failed to close on the agreed date and argued the signed agreement was not binding because a clause requiring mutual consent to advance the closing date had not been initialed.

The court applied an objective test and found the signed agreement was valid and binding, noting the defendant had twice signed amendments confirming the existing terms.

Summary judgment was granted in the amount of $76,965.12, representing the difference between the contract price and resale price plus carrying costs, less the deposit which was credited against damages per the Court of Appeal's analysis in Azzarello.

The claim for lost Airbnb income was denied.

The defendant moving party sought to set aside a noting in default after failing to deliver a timely notice of intent to defend or statement of defence in a civil action over allegedly erroneous credit-report entries.

Applying rr. 19.03(1) and the discretionary framework in appellate authority, the court emphasized determination on the merits, contextual balancing, and prejudice analysis rather than technical default consequences.

The court found the delay was not significant, was explained by an internal service-date mistake, and was followed by prompt steps to investigate and engage opposing counsel.

The plaintiff filed no affidavit evidence of non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted and the noting in default was set aside.

The applicant brought a motion for outstanding financial disclosure in a long-running family law matter involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, a self-employed dentist operating multiple dental practices, brought a cross-motion for disclosure regarding the matrimonial home.

The court granted the majority of the applicant's disclosure requests, finding the respondent's financial records relevant to assessing whether a disconnect exists between his reported income and lifestyle, and noting that two prior disclosure orders remained unfulfilled.

The court declined certain requests as premature, including those affecting non-parties who had not been served.

The respondent's cross-motion regarding the matrimonial home was granted.

Ninety days was provided for compliance with most items.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to validate service of the Statement of Claim on one of the defendants in an assault action arising from a 2015 incident that resulted in the death of the decedent.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay under r. 24.01.

The court declined to validate service, finding the claim did not come to the defendant's notice within the prescribed time and the defendant was not evading service.

The court also declined to extend time for service under r. 3.02, finding presumed and actual prejudice to the defendant.

Applying the test for dismissal for delay, the court found the over-8-year delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial, creating a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The action was dismissed as against the moving defendant.