Dillon Beaulne

The self-represented moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Edwards J. dated November 27, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $7,000, payable by the moving parties.

The Receiver sought orders to approve a construction management contract and related financing for the Heart Lake Project, and to authorize amendments or disclaimers of pre-sale agreements for the Uptowns Project.

The court granted the relief, finding it was the best path to maximize stakeholder recovery, noting that the proposed amendments to pre-sale agreements offered homebuyers an option to retain value or claim deposits from a surety policy, and that disclaiming agreements was necessary for financing and project completion.

The court also approved sealing certain financial information to protect future marketability.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals from his examination for discovery and to re-attend for further questions.

The underlying action involves a claim for damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to a joint venture to grow marijuana.

The court applied relevance and proportionality principles, compelling the plaintiff to provide detailed particulars for his damages claim, including expenses and labour, and to produce supporting evidence.

The court denied the production of the plaintiff's tax returns and Mr. Jassal's legal file, finding the latter privileged and not waived, but ordered production of correspondence from Mr. Jassal to the defendants.

The plaintiff's medical files were also deemed irrelevant.

The court ordered the plaintiff to re-attend discovery for a limited time (90 minutes) to address the new answers, emphasizing the need for proportionality and criticizing the parties' failure to engage in discovery planning.

The plaintiffs purchased a home in 2008 that subsequently experienced significant water infiltration problems.

They sued multiple parties, including the original builders and The Corporation of The Township of Clearview, alleging negligent construction and failure to inspect/enforce the Building Code.

Clearview Township brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action against it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed Clearview's motion, finding that the plaintiffs had raised a triable issue regarding the discoverability of the latent structural defect, as they had reasonably relied on various professionals who did not identify a structural defect until an engineer's report in May 2015.