Dan Rosenbluth

NWG Investments Inc. appealed the motion judge's dismissal of its 2014 action for delay, which stemmed from events in 2007-2008.

The motion judge found the delay inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial.

NWG challenged only the finding of prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of prejudice, which included factors like document availability, witness relevance, and memory.

The court reiterated the plaintiff's obligation to move an action expeditiously and rejected the argument that the decision rewarded defendants for "lying in the weeds."

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's $1.2 billion action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding a 2007 mining transaction, was commenced in Ontario in 2014 but remained at the pleadings stage.

The court found the delay of over eight years to be inordinate and inexcusable, rejecting the plaintiff's explanations regarding replacement of counsel, the pandemic, and health issues.

The court concluded that the delay caused actual prejudice to the defendants due to faded memories, the death of a key witness, and the potential loss of documentary evidence, thereby risking a fair trial.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff claimed approximately $417,000 for breach of contract, while the defendant counterclaimed for over $4.6 million.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential costs award.

Furthermore, the court held that an order for security for costs would not be just in the circumstances, given the inextricably linked and much larger counterclaim, the delay in bringing the motion, and its apparent tactical nature.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeals did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with standard practice, no reasons were provided.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

Following a successful appeal of a summary judgment order, a dispute arose regarding the settling of the court's order on costs.

The respondents argued that a portion of the motion judge's costs order related to a support motion should remain intact.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the motion judge had awarded a global amount for all motions, which were intertwined.

The court clarified that the entire costs award below was set aside and reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant wife sought damages for conspiracy against her husband and his family, alleging they diverted business proceeds to reduce her support payments.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the conspiracy claim and awarded substantial costs against the wife.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by improperly bifurcating issues, misapplying the tort of conspiracy in the family law context, and making palpable factual errors regarding critical evidence.

The Court emphasized that the tort of conspiracy is a valuable tool to deter non-disclosure and ensure collectibility of judgments in family law.

The appeal was allowed, the partial summary judgment and associated costs orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The applicant sought a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision that had dismissed his appeal of a Small Claims Court judgment.

The original action involved a claim for negligence against a condominium corporation for damages resulting from vandalism to the applicant's automobile in the condominium's underground garage.

The applicant alleged the vandalism resulted from a change in the security system.

The Divisional Court upheld the Small Claims Court's dismissal, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the condominium's security decision was unreasonable or that it foreseeably caused his loss.

The motion for leave to appeal was brought late, exceeding the 15-day filing period by more than 20 days.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit as a matter of public importance and did not meet the threshold for a second appeal.