David Dwoskin

The plaintiffs in the Dewan Action brought a motion to adjourn their trial, scheduled for March 24, 2014, until after the completion of an ongoing trial in a related action (the CCC 396 Action).

The adjournment was requested because the plaintiffs intended to call an expert witness whose testimony in the CCC 396 Action had not yet been completed due to repeated delays caused by defence counsel's health issues.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that previous orders indicated the CCC 396 Action should be completed first, as its outcome would impact the Dewan Action.

The court also ordered that all summonses issued for the original trial date remain valid and subsequently set new trial dates for both actions during a case conference.

The plaintiffs and the court-appointed Administrator brought motions to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action.

The defendant had obtained the dismissal order ex parte on December 31, 2012, relying on a prior endorsement that required the action to be set down by December 29, 2012.

However, the defendant failed to disclose to the Registrar that the court had subsequently extended the deadline to February 28, 2013.

The court found that the defendant's failure to disclose the extension constituted a material misstatement and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The dismissal order was set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The plaintiffs, initially self-represented by a solicitor acting for himself and his company, failed to respond to a Status Notice, resulting in an administrative dismissal of their action for unpaid loans.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside the dismissal order.

The court applied the holistic test for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal, finding that despite the plaintiffs' procedural failures and delay, the merits of the action (unpaid loans acknowledged by the defendants) and the lack of prejudice to the defendants justified setting aside the order.

The court also vacated a previous security for costs order and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought an action against the vendor, its principal, and the purchaser for an unpaid real estate commission.

The vendor and purchaser had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale during the listing period, which was later revived and closed under a different corporate purchaser name at the vendor's insistence to avoid paying the commission.

The court found that the commission was earned and payable under the listing agreement.

The court also held the vendor's principal and the corporate purchaser liable for intentional interference with contractual relations for their bad faith conduct in attempting to circumvent the commission.