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.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's oppression application and to release funds held in trust from the sale of a corporate property.

The parties were bound by a shareholder agreement containing a broad arbitration clause.

The applicant argued the dispute involved fraud and third-party creditor claims that fell outside the arbitration clause.

The court found the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the disputes, including allegations of oppressive conduct and fraud, and stayed the application.

The court also ordered the release of $150,000 from the trust funds to the respondents for living expenses and arbitration funding, plus an amount to cover capital gains tax.

Following dismissal of the main action and the third party claim, the court determined costs among the parties.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s costs should be reduced due to inadequate documentary production and the calling of allegedly irrelevant witnesses.

The court rejected most of these objections but applied modest deductions for fairness.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering the complexity of the expert engineering evidence, the court applied a 65% partial indemnity factor rather than the typical 60%.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both the defendant and the third party.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for damages after a retaining wall on the plaintiff's property collapsed.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently approved the wall's design and failed to follow a third-party engineer's recommendation to conduct a complete visual inspection.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an agreement that would create a duty of care regarding the wall's design.

Furthermore, the municipality's prior inspection and repair of the wall constituted a gratuitous undertaking, and there was no detrimental reliance by the plaintiff to ground liability.

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.

The applicants, a group of companies owned by Dondeb Inc., sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to enable an orderly liquidation of their assets.

The application was opposed by approximately 75% of the secured creditors, who argued for individual receiverships due to a lack of confidence in the applicants' principal and the burden of CCAA administrative costs.

The court dismissed the CCAA application, finding it unlikely that a successful plan could be developed and approved by the creditors.

Instead, the court issued a Global Receivership Order, which was supported by the opposing creditors, to achieve an orderly liquidation at a lower cost.