David Esao Mende

The plaintiff brought a motion for security for costs, which involved extensive cross-examination on the defendant's affidavit and numerous undertakings and refusals.

The court found that the motion was delving too deeply into the merits of the main action, causing undue delay and complexity, contrary to the principles of proportionality and efficient access to justice.

The motion for security for costs was adjourned sine die pending the completion of discoveries, with leave to re-bring it thereafter.

The court also provided directions for the production of certain financial documents by the defendant if the motion is pursued later and commented on the potential examination of a non-party.

The Plaintiffs, a former common-law partner and her mother (who held title), brought a motion seeking an interim order for the Defendant (the other former common-law partner) to vacate the property, for the property to be immediately listed for sale, and for 50% of the net proceeds to be released to the Plaintiffs, with the remaining 50% held in trust.

The Defendant brought a cross-motion seeking similar orders for sale but with all net proceeds held in trust, claiming a 50% interest based on constructive trust principles.

The court granted the Plaintiffs' motion, ordering the Defendant to vacate, the property to be sold, and 50% of the net proceeds to be disbursed to the Plaintiffs, with the other 50% held in trust pending the resolution of the Defendant's constructive trust claim.

The Defendant's cross-motion was dismissed.

Following an application in which the applicant obtained a declaration as its primary relief but was denied other remedies, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging bad faith conduct and reliance on an offer to settle under Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no bad faith and holding the offer to settle did not meet the rule’s requirement of being made at least seven days before the hearing.

Applying the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, and considering the partial success achieved, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $40,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought declarations and mandatory relief arising from a cooperation agreement relating to a solar power rooftop project and associated FIT contracts.

The respondents refused to execute transaction documents required to complete a sale of project assets, citing a disputed right of first offer held by a related entity.

The court held that the cooperation agreement clearly required the corporate respondent to use commercially reasonable efforts to facilitate any transaction relating to the project, including asset or share sales.

A declaration was granted confirming that the respondent corporation was obligated to sign the documents, but the court declined to grant a mandatory order or injunction because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm under the RJR‑MacDonald test.