Colleen Yamashita

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated August 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the motion judge in a mortgage default case.

The appellants (mortgagors and guarantor) argued that an agreement existed with the respondent mortgagees to forebear payment until the mortgaged properties were "construction ready." The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's determination that no such oral or written agreement existed, and that the parties' conduct and documentation were inconsistent with such an assertion.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded partial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned the dismissal of a motion to set aside a default judgment against the appellant, Fida Kasi, related to a breached agreement for the purchase and sale of a residential property.

The appellant argued that the respondent, LIV Communities, was not the correct contracting party or property owner and thus could not have sustained damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's decision that LIV Communities and Landmart Homes were the same entity and that the appellant understood they were dealing with LIV Communities.

The plaintiffs, current and former female police officers, sought to certify a class action against the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and Association for systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction, as the claims arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement and the Police Services Act, which provide a comprehensive dispute resolution scheme.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if it had jurisdiction, the claims did not disclose a viable cause of action under common law, as human rights legislation precludes independent civil actions for discrimination and sexual harassment.

In a proposed class action alleging systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment within the Waterloo Regional Police Service, the parties brought several pre-certification motions.

The plaintiffs' motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination by the Chief of Police and the Association President were dismissed.

The defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs' expert evidence and portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits were deemed premature and deferred to the certification motion, though the expert opinion portion of the report was excluded.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by a shareholder of a corporate borrower for an operating line of credit.

The defendant guarantor argued that the claim should be dismissed for delay and that his liability ended after he sold his shares, the borrower declared bankruptcy, and a co‑shareholder agreed to indemnify him.

The court held that the wording of the continuing guarantee preserved liability despite changes in ownership, bankruptcy of the borrower, or insolvency of an indemnifier.

The court also found that the action’s delay did not justify dismissal because the case was document‑driven and no actual prejudice was established.

Summary judgment was granted to the bank for the guaranteed amount.