Dennis G. Crawford

The defendant brought a motion to amend her Statement of Defence and Crossclaim to allege that the plaintiff credit union and its former employee participated in a fraudulent mortgage transaction.

The court dismissed the motion to amend the pleadings regarding the employee and the credit union, finding that the defendant knew of the employee's involvement years prior.

The proposed amendments constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Minor amendments elaborating on the existing fraud pleadings against the co-defendant were permitted.

Following a successful motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent a commercial landlord from breaching a lease, the applicant sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity fees of $7,491.90, noting the applicant bore a heavier burden as the moving party.

However, the court significantly reduced the claimed disbursements for an expert witness retainer, finding the $11,611.80 claimed was unreasonable for the motion stage.

Total costs were fixed at $11,253.66.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion claiming constructive dismissal after 22 years of service.

Following a corporate acquisition, the defendant unilaterally revoked the plaintiff's long-standing arrangement to work from home three days a week, placed her on a performance improvement plan, and arbitrarily reduced her bonus.

The court found that the ability to work from home was an essential term of the employment contract and its unilateral removal, along with the bonus reduction, constituted constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on a 22-month notice period, subject to minor deductions, plus compensation for the underpaid bonus.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis after obtaining a judgment for $11,826.98 in a mortgage dispute.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

The court found that the plaintiffs had grossly overreached by demanding almost four times their entitlement before agreeing to discharge the mortgage, while the defendant had maintained an unreasonable position regarding the interest rate, rendering the matter virtually unsettleable.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the amount owing by the defendant on a mortgage.

The court found that the stated interest rate of 0.8% was a typo and the agreed rate was 8%.

The court disallowed the plaintiffs' claims for a lender's fee, an automatic renewal fee, and administrative fees, finding the renewal fee to be a penalty and the others unsupported by evidence.

The court also found the plaintiffs had received a payment of $86,184.68, contrary to their assertions.

The defendant was ordered to pay the remaining balance of $11,826.98, and the plaintiffs were denied their pre-litigation legal fees.

The moving party sought an order staying the respondent's action until a costs award in favour of a former co-defendant was paid in full.

The respondent claimed impecuniosity but provided no financial disclosure to support the claim.

The court found that court orders must be enforced and that the respondent had made no voluntary effort to pay the costs award.

The court granted the motion, staying the action until the costs are paid and setting a deadline for payment, failing which the moving party may move to dismiss the claim.

A creditor appealed a deputy registrar’s refusal to lift the automatic stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act following the debtor’s bankruptcy.

The creditor argued the underlying judgment involved conduct amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation such that the debt would survive discharge under s. 178(1)(e), and that the registrar failed to consider sound reasons to lift the stay.

The court held that the registrar correctly applied the governing principles and was not required to make new findings of fraud absent such findings by the trial judge.

Because the underlying judgment contained no finding of fraud or false pretences, and lifting the stay would give the creditor an advantage inconsistent with the statutory scheme, there was no basis to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.