Daley

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff municipality on her property.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's former husband, while employed by the municipality, defrauded it of approximately $23 million and used the stolen funds to extensively renovate the property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for a proprietary interest in the property through equitable tracing, and that the defendant failed to satisfy the factors required to discharge a CPL under section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in fraud and deceit, the defendants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made unsupported allegations of fraud against the defendants on an inadequate evidentiary record, warranting cost sanctions.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $246,213.93.

The court declined to award costs against the plaintiffs' counsel personally.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of substantial sums of money through fraudulent conduct and misrepresentations regarding mortgage investments, a property development project, and a family trust.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of a premeditated fraudulent scheme, irreparable harm, and a serious risk of asset dissipation, particularly given the individual defendant's prior regulatory sanctions for fraudulent conduct.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.

The respondents brought a motion to stay or dismiss the application as an abuse of process, alleging the applicant failed to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with a co-respondent, failed to disclose surveillance evidence, and improperly commenced the proceeding as an application.

The court found that the applicant had made immediate and proper disclosure of the settlement agreement to both the non-settling parties and the court, and that the handling of surveillance evidence did not constitute an abuse of process.

The motion to stay was dismissed, but the court ordered the application converted into an action.

The plaintiff franchisee brought a motion for relief from forfeiture and an interlocutory injunction to reinstate a terminated franchise agreement and commercial sublease for a Williams Fresh Café location.

The franchisor had terminated the agreement after the plaintiff failed health audits, accrued significant debts, and closed the store.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, requiring a strong prima facie case because the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to enforce a month-to-month agreement with no renewal right.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a $200,000 real estate investment.

The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment regarding the calculation of profits and holdbacks from the sale of two properties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the enforceability of the settlement releases, alleged misrepresentations of costs, and whether the claims were statute-barred.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $9,750,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action arising from severe birth injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff.

The court reviewed the proposed distribution, including damages, costs, and legal fees calculated under a Contingent Fee Agreement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, and the reduced contingency fee of 27.5% appropriate, the court approved the settlement and the related guardianship application.

During a civil trial, the plaintiffs sought to cross-examine a defence witness on unproven fraud charges to impeach his credibility, after the witness denied having a criminal record in chief.

The court denied the request, holding that under the bad character exclusionary rule, unproven allegations against a non-party witness have high prejudicial effect and extremely low probative value.

The plaintiffs brought a motion during trial under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to introduce previously undisclosed documents to impeach a defence witness.

The trial had been adjourned for several months due to illness, meaning the defendants had the documents since January 2022 and cross-examination had not yet commenced.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the explanation for late disclosure was weak, the lengthy adjournment cured any prejudice or ambush, and the documents could be used solely for impeachment purposes.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking leave to obtain a passport for the parties' young child and to travel to India for six to eight weeks.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing concerns that the mother would not return to Canada.

The court dismissed the travel and passport requests, noting the mother's tenuous connection to Canada, the lack of a specific travel plan, and the fact that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.

The court also severed the divorce from corollary relief and adjourned the issue of financial disclosure.

The court monitor brought a motion for advice and directions due to the defendants' failure to comply with a prior court order requiring them to provide financial disclosure and a $500,000 retainer.

The defendants opposed the motion but failed to file any evidentiary record.

The court granted the Monitor's motion, ordering the defendants to comply with the prior order, provide the required financial records, and authorizing the release of the retainer funds from a specific bank account.

In a long-running dispute over the ownership and management of medical schools, the respondents sought leave from the case management judge to bring a motion to set aside or vary a prior court order under Rule 59.06(2).

The respondents relied on a foreign court order as fresh evidence.

The court denied leave, finding that the foreign order did not constitute fresh evidence that would have changed the result, the respondents had delayed significantly in raising it, and the proposed motion was an abuse of process attempting to relitigate fully adjudicated issues.

The plaintiff successfully moved for the production of financial records related to the defendant from third-party financial institutions.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion.

The defendant opposed the quantum but failed to file a costs outline as ordered.

The court awarded the plaintiff its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive sum of $28,125.92, noting the defendant's conduct in expanding the issues and the failure to file a costs outline.

The plaintiff successfully moved for the production of financial records from third-party financial institutions related to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that costs should be left to the trial judge and contested the quantum, but failed to provide a costs outline.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $22,892.14 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the defendants' conduct in expanding the issues and their failure to file a costs outline.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records from non-party financial institutions relating to the defendant Snowball.

The action involves an alleged $23 million fraud scheme manipulating the plaintiff's procurement processes.

Snowball, a former employee, opposed the motion, arguing the records were not relevant, production was not necessary before discovery, and it would violate her privacy rights.

The court found the records were highly relevant to tracing the defrauded funds and assessing liability, and that pre-discovery production was necessary for the forensic accountants to complete their investigation.

The court also rejected the privacy arguments, finding no constitutional or statutory protection that would override the open court principle and the need for disclosure.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records held by third-party financial institutions relating to the defendants, alleging a complex procurement fraud scheme.

The responding defendants opposed the production of personal banking records but consented to the production of certain corporate records.

The court dismissed the contested portions of the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the requested documents were relevant to a material issue or that it would be unfair to proceed to discovery without them, applying the Ballard factors.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records held by non-party financial institutions relating to the defendants.

The action arose from an alleged $2.5 million fraud involving the manipulation of the municipality's procurement processes by a former employee and various vendors.

The former employee had previously been convicted of criminal fraud related to the same conduct.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records were highly relevant to tracing the misappropriated funds and quantifying the losses, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to discovery without them.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that their privacy interests precluded production.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he was not liable for costs because he had accepted the defendants' offer to settle, which proposed a dismissal without costs.

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to accept the offer only after his request for an adjournment was denied at the motion hearing.

Applying Rule 49, the court held that the hearing had already commenced when the defendants' counsel first addressed the court, rendering the plaintiff's acceptance untimely.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs of $15,881.04.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, a construction company and its principal, for breach of a home renovation contract.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to properly file a notice of intent to defend.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract, provided limited labour and materials, and misappropriated funds, resulting in unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff was awarded $78,636.97 in damages for overpayments and remedial costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the sale, arguing she and the children should remain in the home until the youngest child reached 21.

The court found no evidence that the applicant's request was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive, nor that the sale would adversely affect the children.

The motion was granted, with the home ordered to be listed for sale and a portion of the net proceeds released to each party upon closing.