Daniel Mayo

In the context of ongoing oppression remedy actions, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings on the eve of the continuation of the trial, necessitating an adjournment.

The plaintiffs subsequently sought an adjournment of their own motions to amend in order to cross-examine a deponent.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the trial preparation thrown away and the motions, payable as a condition precedent to the plaintiffs proceeding with their motions.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct in the litigation, including late decision-making and failing to properly plead discoverability, unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and warranted sanction.

The court awarded the defendants $37,450 in substantial indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiffs as a condition precedent to proceeding with their motions to amend.

A motion was brought to appoint the plaintiff's wife as his litigation guardian after he suffered a stroke and brain hemorrhage.

The court adjourned the motion, finding that the medical evidence of incapacity was insufficient because it relied on hearsay rather than a direct affidavit from the capacity assessor.

Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed litigation guardian was a co-defendant in the proceedings and may have an adverse interest, contrary to the requirement that a litigation guardian be indifferent to the outcome.

At a trial management conference for two related actions, the court addressed delays in obtaining a joint expert report on corporate finances and concerns regarding a party's capacity to testify following a stroke.

On consent, the court ordered peremptory deadlines for the production of financial documents to the expert and for the completion of the expert's report.

The court also ordered, on consent, that the party who suffered a stroke undergo an assessment to determine whether he is a person under a disability requiring a litigation guardian under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following a decision on share ownership, the court held a trial management conference to determine next steps in the consolidated actions, which include an oppression remedy claim.

The court directed the parties to consider whether a stay motion will be brought pending an appeal of the initial decision, how to efficiently gather and present extensive financial evidence, and the potential for a mid-trial settlement conference.

The conference was adjourned to allow counsel to obtain instructions.

Following a decision on share ownership, the court held a trial management conference to determine next steps in the consolidated actions, which include an oppression remedy claim.

The court directed the parties to consider whether a stay motion will be brought pending an appeal of the initial decision, how to efficiently gather and present extensive financial evidence, and the potential for a mid-trial settlement conference.

The conference was adjourned to allow counsel to obtain instructions.

Following dismissal of preliminary motions seeking leave to amend pleadings and adjourn trial, the court was required to fix the quantum of costs previously awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties argued that costs should instead be assessed on a partial indemnity basis and that costs for an earlier adjournment appearance before another judge should be included.

The court held that the scale of costs could not be reconsidered absent an appeal and that costs related to the earlier appearance remained to be determined later.

The court fixed substantial indemnity costs payable to the responding parties for preparation and attendance on the motions.

Payment was ordered within 30 days pursuant to rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

During a consolidated family corporate dispute involving multiple related actions and a counterclaim, the moving parties sought leave at the outset of trial to amend their pleadings and requested an adjournment of the trials.

The proposed amendments largely consisted of legal arguments relating to whether the plaintiff’s oppression remedy claim should instead proceed as a derivative action under the Business Corporations Act.

The court held that the motion lacked evidentiary support, was brought far too late in a case‑managed proceeding, and raised arguments that did not require pleading amendments.

The court also refused the requested adjournment, finding the moving parties had failed to pursue procedural remedies earlier regarding outstanding undertakings and trial scheduling concerns.

All motions were dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The court determined costs following three motions involving the release of real estate trust funds, summary judgment against one party, and the appointment of an interim receiver/manager.

Success on the trust fund release motion was divided and no costs were ordered.

The summary judgment motion and the motion for appointment of an interim receiver were both dismissed, resulting in clear success for the responding parties.

Applying the principles governing costs and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs of $15,000 for each successful party.

The court also directed reimbursement from trust funds for municipal tax arrears previously paid.

Montel brought a motion to strike the defendants' counterclaims and for judgment on unpaid invoices in Action No. 1.

The defendants sought to stay Action No. 1 and consolidate it with Action No. 2, which involved claims for breach of a distribution agreement.

Montel also moved to dismiss Action No. 2 based on a forum selection clause.

The court struck the counterclaims in Action No. 1 as duplicitous of claims in Action No. 2 and granted judgment to Montel for the unpaid invoices, refusing a stay.

The court dismissed Montel's jurisdictional motion, finding the validity of the agreement containing the forum clause was a triable issue.

Finally, the court allowed Kipawa to be added as a plaintiff in Action No. 2 but denied consolidation, ordering consecutive trials instead.

The parties, members of the same family, were involved in a dispute over the ownership and management of a family real estate holding company.

One brother moved for the appointment of an interlocutory receiver to oversee the company, while the other brother moved for summary judgment dismissing their mother's claim regarding her share ownership, and for the disbursement of funds held in trust.

The court dismissed the motion for a receiver, finding no evidence of irreparable harm and noting the company's substantial value.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, concluding that the conflicting evidence regarding share transfers required a trial.

The motion to disburse trust funds was dismissed, though the court ordered that municipal tax arrears be paid directly from the funds.

The parties, members of the same family, were involved in a dispute over the ownership and management of a family real estate holding company.

One brother moved for the appointment of an interlocutory receiver to oversee the company, while the other brother moved for summary judgment dismissing their mother's claim regarding her share ownership, and for the disbursement of funds held in trust.

The court dismissed the motion for a receiver, finding no evidence of irreparable harm and noting the company's substantial value.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, concluding that the conflicting evidence regarding share transfers required a trial.

The motion to disburse trust funds was dismissed, though the court ordered that municipal tax arrears be paid directly from the funds.