Daniel Campoli

The appellants sought a panel review of a single judge's decision dismissing their motion for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The underlying action against Dominion Lending Centres Inc. and others for alleged mortgage fraud was dismissed by the Superior Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the single judge dismissed the motion solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the single judge explicitly found the grounds of appeal devoid of merit and the lower court's reasons cogent.

The motion for panel review was dismissed with costs.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a motion brought by the Furneys under Rule 59.06 to set aside or vary the dismissal of their appeal and for an extension of time.

The court previously dismissed the Furneys' motion, finding it to be an abuse of process.

The respondents were awarded full indemnity costs.

The court also issued a prohibition order preventing the Furneys from filing further materials in this matter without satisfying all costs awards and obtaining leave of the court, due to their continued abuse of process.

The defendants/appellants brought a motion for a stay of a writ of possession pending appeal, following previous unsuccessful attempts to challenge a judgment granting judgment on a second mortgage and striking their defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the underlying appeal meritless and that the balance of convenience favored the respondents.

The court also addressed the issue of costs, noting concerns about multiple counsel representing parties with identical interests.

The appellants sought to overturn a summary judgment granted against them, which included full indemnity costs under a second mortgage, and the striking of their statement of defence and counterclaim without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable under the mortgage, their pleadings were unparticularized, and that other outstanding claims did not justify delaying judgment.

The court also upheld the refusal to grant leave to amend due to the unintelligible nature of the pleadings and the appellants' failure to seek amendment or provide proposed amended pleadings.

The appellants sought an adjournment of their appeal due to one appellant's serious medical condition and their current lack of counsel.

The court granted a brief, peremptory adjournment solely due to the medical unfitness of one appellant, emphasizing that future adjournments would require a formal motion and that the appeal would proceed regardless of medical issues or retained counsel on the new date.

Costs of the adjournment were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff mortgage syndicate brought a motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim regarding a defaulted second mortgage.

The defendants, who had not made any payments, alleged unparticularized fraudulent behaviour by the plaintiffs' agents.

The court struck the statement of defence and counterclaim as they disclosed no reasonable defence or cause of action.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded full indemnity costs.

Following a lengthy construction lien trial where the plaintiff recovered approximately $100,000 of a $250,000 claim, the plaintiff sought costs of over $239,000.

The court found that while the plaintiff was ultimately successful in obtaining a net judgment, the defendant was overwhelmingly successful on the central issue of charge-backs.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the plaintiff's exaggerated lien claim and unreasonable litigation conduct, the court significantly reduced the plaintiff's costs, awarding a total of $87,226.43 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant general contractor to enforce a construction lien and for breach of contract regarding structural steel and miscellaneous metals work on a school project.

The court found that the parties had entered into two separate contracts.

The plaintiff failed to preserve its lien rights for the structural steel contract in a timely manner, but its claim was permitted to proceed as a personal judgment under section 63 of the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff's lien for the miscellaneous metals contract was validly preserved.

The court conducted a detailed accounting of the base contract prices, approved extras, and valid charge-backs for deficient or incomplete work performed by third parties.

Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff a net judgment of $99,346.83 across both contracts.

The applicant landlord sought summary judgment for $152,101.29 in rent arrears, claiming the leased premises were larger than initially stated in the 10-year commercial lease.

The respondents, tenants, argued that the landlord was estopped from making the claim due to prior representations and that the claim was statute-barred.

The court dismissed the landlord's motion, finding that the landlord was estopped from pursuing the retroactive claim for arrears and that the claim was statute-barred, as the landlord had confirmed the initial square footage for over nine years of the lease term and failed to exercise its right to re-measure in a timely and reasonable manner.

Following a 19-day construction lien trial, a procedural dispute arose regarding closing submissions.

The defendant filed a surrebuttal that raised a new defence under the Limitations Act, 2002, and implicitly alleged professional negligence against the plaintiff's counsel.

The plaintiff requested a right of reply.

The court granted the plaintiff a limited right of reply, finding that trial fairness dictated the plaintiff must have an opportunity to respond to a newly raised, unpleaded limitations defence.

The defendant mortgagor defaulted on her mortgage and the plaintiff mortgagee obtained default judgment and a writ of possession.

The mortgagor subsequently sought to refinance and challenged the amounts claimed by the mortgagee in its discharge statement, arguing that the default judgment estopped the mortgagee from claiming additional fees and that the fees were unreasonable or offended the Interest Act.

The court held that the default judgment did not merge the mortgage covenants, allowing the mortgagee to claim additional fees.

However, the court reduced several administrative and legal fees, disallowed a three-month termination bonus, and fixed the total amount required to discharge the mortgage at $376,661.51.

This case conference endorsement outlines procedural progress in a complex, multi-party construction litigation involving Carillion Construction Inc., the City of Toronto, and NORR Limited, among others.

The court addressed the schedule for executive discoveries, ruling that they must proceed as planned, contrary to the City's submission.

It also confirmed the mediation schedule for March-April 2019, involving various claimants and insurers.

Further directions were given regarding documentary production by subcontractors and the City's amended third-party claim against Metrolinx, setting deadlines for Metrolinx's response or motion.