Dennis Geoffrey Crawford

In a bankruptcy proceeding, creditors brought a motion to lift the stay of proceedings against the bankrupt, who was allegedly involved in a mortgage fraud scheme.

In support, they filed affidavits detailing the alleged involvement of other defendants, including the moving parties on this cross-motion.

The moving parties sought to examine the affiant, strike portions of the affidavits, and seal the record.

The court dismissed the request to examine the affiant, finding it would not benefit the administration of the estate.

However, the court struck the impugned paragraphs under Rule 25.11, as they were irrelevant to the lift stay motion.

The request for a sealing order was dismissed without prejudice due to procedural failures and reliance on outdated case law.

Purchasers sought return of a $150,000 deposit on a failed real estate transaction for a property in Kitchener, Ontario.

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale was dated July 22, 2024, with a purchase price of $2,840,000 and closing date of August 26, 2024.

The sale did not close.

The purchasers raised two grounds for return of the deposit: (1) the vendor's spouse did not provide the required matrimonial consent under the Family Law Act, and (2) a writ of execution against the vendor was not removed from title.

The court found both grounds valid and ordered return of the deposit with interest and costs.

This is a decision on costs following a judgment in which both parties received monetary awards, but the net result favoured College Grain Inc. The court considered the parties’ offers to settle, the proportionality of costs, and the policy behind the Simplified Rules.

Ultimately, the court awarded College Grain Inc. $50,000 plus HST for fees and $35,886.52 for disbursements, for a total of $92,386.52, to be paid by Wilhelm Concrete.

The plaintiff contractor sued for unpaid invoices relating to the construction of concrete grain silos.

The defendant grain company counterclaimed for damages, alleging construction deficiencies caused water infiltration and grain spoilage.

The court found that the contractor's defective workmanship caused water infiltration in two silos.

The court awarded the defendant damages for repair costs, increased labour, and future repairs, while dismissing claims for spoiled grain due to lack of documentary evidence.

The court also held that the defendant's counterclaim was not statute-barred because the limitation period did not commence while the contractor was actively attempting to repair the defects.

The plaintiff was awarded its unpaid invoices, but the individual defendant was found not personally liable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Steve Konarski from a judgment holding him liable for conversion and detinue after he took and stripped a vintage Corvette belonging to the Kew estate.

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to award damages on a restoration basis, rather than market value at the date of conversion, due to the unique and sentimental value of the vehicle.

The court also upheld aggravated damages for the estate’s emotional harm and rejected arguments that the damages were disproportionate or contrary to public policy.

This endorsement determines the costs of a previous motion where Built By Engineers Construction Inc. (BBE) successfully defended against Coronation Medical Plaza Inc.'s (Coronation) motion to discharge a construction lien.

BBE sought partial indemnity costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario.

The court found a fair and reasonable award of costs to be $22,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by Coronation to BBE.

Coronation Medical Plaza Inc. brought a motion under s. 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a construction lien registered by Built By Engineers Construction Inc., arguing the lien was not registered in time.

The court determined that the former Construction Lien Act applied as the contract was entered into before July 1, 2018.

The court found that there were significant factual disputes, particularly regarding whether certain work was removed from the contract scope, the reason for delayed invoicing, and whether later work related to defects or separate contracts.

The court declined to exercise enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20, as these are not available on a s. 47 motion, and found that the disputed issues required credibility assessments best made at trial.

Consequently, the motion to discharge the lien was dismissed due to the existence of triable issues regarding the lien's timeliness.

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.

The appellant and respondent were registered as 50% owners of a property.

The respondent applied for a sale under the Partition Act, while the appellant sought a declaration that the respondent held his interest in trust for her.

The application judge found the transfer was not gratuitous and ordered the sale.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the finding that the transfer was not wholly gratuitous, as the respondent had assumed liability for the mortgage.

However, the court found the application judge erred in granting the respondent a full 50% interest, as the appellant's sister had transferred her 50% interest to the parties equally.

The court concluded the respondent held a 25% interest, with the remaining 25% held in trust for the appellant.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the property was ordered to be sold.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles determining the easterly and westerly boundary lines of his property and dismissing his request for costs.

The appellant argued the Deputy Director erred by rejecting surveyor evidence that a cedar hedge and a frame structure established the boundaries through possession.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Deputy Director reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence to relate the physical occupation back to the original survey.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to one of the respondents.

This case involved an application by Milijana Cvetkovic claiming 100% beneficial ownership of two properties, 192 and 194 Wentworth Avenue, Kitchener, despite Patrick Perrier being registered as a 50% co-owner.

Cvetkovic argued Perrier held his interest in trust for her, asserting a gratuitous transfer.

Perrier contended he was a 50% beneficial owner, having provided consideration by co-signing the mortgage and making payments.

The court dismissed Cvetkovic's application, finding that the transfer was not gratuitous, as both parties jointly borrowed funds, paid the sister's interest, and received the transferred title.

Perrier was granted leave to proceed with the partition and sale of the property.

An employee who began working for a predecessor company in 1995 with an arrangement to work from home three days per week was informed in January 2017 that she could no longer work from home effective March 1, 2017.

The employee took the position that she had been constructively dismissed.

The motion judge found constructive dismissal based on two grounds: the breach of an essential term regarding work-from-home arrangements and the arbitrary setting of the employee's fourth quarter 2016 bonus.

The motion judge awarded 20.5 months of salary (less a 10% contingency), compensation for the underpaid bonus, and lost benefits.

The employer appealed; the employee cross-appealed regarding bonus entitlements during the notice period.

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 appellant appealed from a trial judgment awarding the respondent US$192,000 in compensatory damages plus pre-judgment interest, $25,000 in punitive damages, and $85,000 in costs in a civil fraud case.

The trial judge found that the appellant fraudulently obtained US$200,000 from the respondent, a vulnerable widow, by misrepresenting that the funds would not be traded and then investing them in call options through his personal accounts, resulting in total loss.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the credibility findings were supported by the record, and the punitive damages award was appropriate given the appellant's highly reprehensible conduct.

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.

The plaintiff, a vulnerable widow with limited financial knowledge, sued the defendant for civil fraud after losing $250,000 USD of her life insurance proceeds in speculative options trading through the defendant's account.

The defendant, a computer-literate individual with investment knowledge, had promised the plaintiff's dying husband he would look after her and her children.

The court found the defendant committed civil fraud by taking advantage of the plaintiff's vulnerability and making reckless trades, despite his claims that the plaintiff directed the trades.

The court awarded compensatory damages of $192,000 USD and punitive damages of $25,000 CAD.

The appellant unsecured creditor appealed a decision dismissing an appeal from a Deputy Registrar's refusal to lift a stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Registrar had properly considered the equitable grounds to lift the stay and applied the correct test.