David R. Conway

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a prior order prohibiting the defendants from dealing with a property, arguing that the defendants' default on Minutes of Settlement allowed them to continue the action under Rule 49.09(b).

The plaintiffs also sought a contempt order.

The third-party purchasers of the property sought to intervene.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding it would not make a useful contribution.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, holding that Rule 49.09(b) does not apply to negotiated Minutes of Settlement, and that the prior prohibition order had been set aside and was no longer in effect.

The plaintiffs' remedy was to move for judgment on the settlement.

This case management endorsement addresses multiple ongoing proceedings involving a vexatious litigant, Nadire Atas.

The court made several orders and directions, including confirming the open court principle for case management conferences, dismissing numerous actions against Peoples Trust and other defendants due to the litigant's failure to comply with "Chavali requests" (orders to demonstrate intent to continue litigation), and setting deadlines for filing defence and bringing a motion for a stay of summary judgment proceedings.

The court also addressed the litigant's repeated allegations of bias and jurisdictional challenges, dismissing them as meritless and vexatious.

Directions were given regarding outstanding costs orders and the process for appealing interlocutory rulings.

The plaintiff, a self-represented real estate agent, sued his former brokerage and two managers for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations after his work contract was terminated due to various conduct-related issues and complaints from clients and colleagues.

The court dismissed both claims, finding no evidentiary basis for defamation, as communications to police and regulatory bodies (RECO) were protected by qualified or absolute privilege.

The claim for intentional interference with economic relations also failed due to lack of intent to injure and the lawfulness of the defendants' actions, including the contractual termination.

Furthermore, a portion of the economic interference claim related to the discontinuation of a 'duty sheet' roster was found to be statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its claim for an unpaid final invoice for renovation work.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed both the contractor's claim for payment and the homeowners' counterclaim for deficiencies, finding insufficient evidence for both.

On appeal, the Superior Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by requiring supporting receipts for the invoice when the invoice itself, coupled with the appellant's credible testimony and the respondents' admission of receipt, was sufficient evidence.

The court also noted the respondents' failure to properly plead or cross-examine on the invoice's quantum.

The appeal was granted, and judgment was substituted for the appellant, deducting only the cost of disputed heaters.

The respondents' unappealed claim for deficiencies was not reconsidered.