Dhiren Rajesh Chohan

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred nearly 18 years prior.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate, it was not inexcusable, as the defendants had consented to or requested many of the adjournments, and the plaintiff had been actively participating in the litigation process.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court set a timetable to bring the matter to trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against her brother, his wife, and their two corporations for the repayment of a loan funded through her personal line of credit.

The defendants argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding the terms of the loan and whether the personal defendants were liable.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the documentary evidence established the loan was for the benefit of all defendants, had a one-year term, and was acknowledged by the defendants.

Summary judgment was granted against all defendants in the amount of $155,322.82.

The interested parties appealed a motions judge's order requiring them and the garnishee, Vale Canada Limited, to produce contracts and assignment documents for an upcoming garnishment hearing.

The plaintiffs had obtained a default judgment against the defendant and sought to garnish amounts owed by Vale, alleging that the defendant had invalidly assigned its contracts to the interested parties to avoid garnishment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order production of documents relevant to determining the rights and liabilities of the parties at the garnishment hearing.

Following a trial where the jury found no negligence or liability against the defendants, the defendant Cedar Fair Entertainment Company sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Cedar Fair's Rule 49 offer to settle.

Despite Cedar Fair's complete success at trial, the court applied the principle of proportionality, finding the requested costs disproportionate to the case's complexity and the amount reasonably at issue.

A global costs award of $45,000, all-inclusive, was made in favour of Cedar Fair, to be paid by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy after the defendant posted an intimate video of the plaintiff online.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside the default judgment.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal the order setting aside the default judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the test to set aside a default judgment, and concluding that a trial on the merits would be of general importance to the development of the law.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision that set aside a default judgment against the defendant.

The original default judgment found the defendant liable for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy, awarding significant damages and an injunction.

The motion judge (Dow J.) set aside the default judgment, allowing the defendant to defend on the merits, conditional on a costs payment.

The plaintiff argued that the motion judge erred by considering the defendant's proposed defence despite intentional default, failing to distinguish liability from damages, and not adequately considering psychological harm.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and emphasizing the importance of a trial on the merits for the development of tort law in this unique area.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment awarding the plaintiff $100,000 in damages for the non-consensual posting of an intimate video.

Applying the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms, the court found that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the liability and damages portions of the judgment, as the defendant had an arguable defence regarding the quantum of damages and had moved relatively promptly.

The motion was granted on the condition that the defendant pay $10,000 in costs thrown away, while the permanent injunctions remained in place.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for leave to be represented by its sole shareholder, while the defendant brought a motion for security for costs in a construction lien action.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, noting the trend of allowing sole proprietorship-like corporations to be self-represented.

The court also granted the defendant's motion for security for costs, finding good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, and ordered the plaintiff to post $20,000.