D. LaFramboise

The defendant, Terry Walman, brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim against him, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs, mortgagors, had sued Walman, the mortgagee's lawyer, alleging breach of contract, improvident sale, and Charter violations related to a power of sale.

The court found that a lawyer owes no duty of care to opposing parties and that allegations of Walman being a 'controlling mind' were bald and unsupported.

Furthermore, Charter rights do not apply to private disputes.

The Statement of Claim was found to lack material facts for a recognized cause of action against Walman.

Leave to amend was denied due to the plaintiffs' failure to address deficiencies despite ample time.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to collect funds advanced to the defendants pursuant to three promissory notes and a mortgage.

The defendants raised several defences, including that the interest rates offended the Criminal Code, lack of consent to the assignment of the debts, alleged payments made, extinguishment of the debt by power of sale, and an agreement not to enforce.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on any of the defences, noting the interest rates were below the criminal rate and the defendants had acknowledged the full amounts owing.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amounts plus interest.

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss an action brought against them by the plaintiff, a frequent litigation adversary of their client.

The plaintiff alleged professional misconduct and actionable wrongs, including conspiracy and misleading the court, stemming from the defendants' representation of their client.

While the plaintiff conceded that lawyers do not owe a duty of care to opposing parties, he argued his amended claim, which included new allegations, established a genuine issue for trial.

The court considered the amended claim but found that the plaintiff failed to provide specific facts or evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action.

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim regarding a fraudulently transferred property.

The court found serious credibility issues with both parties concerning the property transfers and a trust agreement.

The defendant, as trustee, failed in his duty to account to the plaintiff, the beneficial owner.

Given the significant credibility issues, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial, and suggested a mini-trial or consolidation with related litigation.

The parties, former and remaining trustees of a Gurdwara, entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a dispute over the sale of the property.

The settlement required the remaining trustees to pay $1,734,584 into trust, representing alleged loans made by the departing trustees, subject to an audit.

A court-appointed accountant reviewed the financial records and stratified the alleged loans into three levels of evidentiary quality.

The court reviewed the accountant's report and the evidence, rejecting many of the undocumented or poorly documented loan claims.

The court determined that the departing trustees proved bona fide loans totaling $820,131.69, after deducting repayments.

The court heard a motion for directions regarding the disposition of settlement trust monies held following a dispute between trustees of a religious organization.

A third-party creditor sought standing and payment of the monies, arguing they were the source of the funds.

The court denied the creditor standing, finding they had no direct interest in the accounting between the trustees.

The court granted standing to the organization and the two trustees who paid the settlement monies, and directed that an accounting hearing proceed despite the organization being in receivership.

The parties, involved in family litigation for over a decade, resolved all issues except costs through minutes of settlement.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $141,489.86, citing the Respondent's non-compliance with disclosure orders, delays due to frequent counsel changes, and failure to pay previous cost awards.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $18,590.76, arguing he was more successful on property valuation and income, and that his settlement offers were reasonable.

The court found the Respondent's conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding disclosure and unpaid costs, but rejected the Applicant's claim of bad faith.

Considering the mutual compromise in settlement and the excessive amount claimed by the Applicant, the court awarded the Applicant $40,000.00 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, in addition to previously unpaid awards.