Doug LaFramboise

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion without notice seeking a Certificate of Pending Litigation over residential property owned by the defendants, asserting a resulting trust arising from an alleged $130,000 loan used to purchase the property.

The property was under agreement of purchase and sale with closing imminent, and the plaintiff argued a CPL was necessary to protect his interest before proceeds were dissipated in the defendants’ separation.

The court held that ex parte relief of this nature requires extraordinary urgency and careful scrutiny, particularly where it would effectively operate as an injunction affecting third-party purchasers.

The evidentiary record contained no documentation of the alleged loan or indebtedness.

The court declined to issue a CPL without notice and adjourned the motion to permit service on the defendants and further evidence.

Following a successful motion reinstating the applicants as members of a religious organization, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs for the entire action dating back to an earlier request for reinstatement, relying in part on an unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court held that costs should be limited to work related to the reinstatement motion heard on August 22, 2014 and not the broader action or prior proceedings.

While the applicants were completely successful on the reinstatement issue and entitled to costs, the court found their claimed time disproportionate to the focused issue litigated.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 all inclusive, payable by the organization, and not by its officers who were not parties to the motion.

The defendant brought a motion seeking a determination that a construction lien was registered outside the time limits prescribed by the Construction Lien Act.

The moving party argued the lien was invalid because the only invoice for work performed had been delivered more than 45 days before the lien was registered.

The responding party produced time records showing additional work at the project site within 45 days of the lien registration.

The court found insufficient evidence to determine whether the work fell within the lien period and noted disputes about the date of last work and substantial completion.

Concluding that genuine issues requiring a trial remained, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the motion judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000, and the certificate of stay was set aside.

The appellants appealed part of a Master's order denying their motion to dismiss the respondents' counterclaim in a mortgage enforcement action.

The appellants had obtained summary judgment on the main action but sought dismissal of counterclaim allegations including repayment of funds deducted from the mortgage advance and damages for vandalism, breach of contract, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court held that the appellants failed to link their evidentiary record to the specific counterclaim allegations and therefore did not meet their burden on the summary judgment motion.

The Master correctly applied the governing legal principles and did not commit a palpable and overriding error or exercise discretion on wrong principles.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him personally liable on a promissory note.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding he signed the note, in finding the funds were advanced to him personally rather than to a corporation, and in allowing the late introduction of the original note at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's factual findings and no procedural unfairness, as the appellant had not pleaded forgery or objected to the document's admission at trial.

The responding spouse brought a long motion seeking temporary spousal support, an extension of time to advance an equalization claim, and financial disclosure, arising from an interim separation agreement executed without legal advice or financial disclosure.

The court held that the agreement expressly contemplated future determination of equalization and spousal support and therefore did not bar the claims.

Applying s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, the court extended the limitation period to permit the equalization claim to proceed, finding prima facie entitlement, delay incurred in good faith, and no substantial prejudice.

The court also ordered extensive financial disclosure and interim spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using the best available income evidence.

The appellants appealed a Master’s order refusing to dismiss most aspects of a counterclaim on a summary judgment motion in a mortgage enforcement action.

The counterclaim alleged vandalism, burglary, trespass, breach of contract, conspiracy, and repayment of fees deducted from the mortgage advance.

The appellants argued that the Master misapprehended the evidence and improperly shifted the burden by requiring them to disprove the respondents’ allegations.

The court held that the appellants failed to adduce evidence specifically addressing several pleaded claims or linking their evidence to the alleged causes of action.

The Master applied the correct legal principles and committed no palpable and overriding error.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment, vacate a writ of execution, and extend time to deliver a statement of defence in a negligence and breach of retainer claim arising from a failed mortgage transaction.

The court held the default judgment was irregular because the claim for professional negligence and breach of contract was not a liquidated demand capable of supporting default judgment without assessment of damages.

Although the court found the defendant had likely been personally served, it accepted that the default was not deliberate and that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the writ.

The noting in default was set aside and the defendant was permitted to deliver a defence.

The court also vacated the writ of execution, finding that maintaining it would amount to impermissible pre‑judgment execution akin to a Mareva injunction without the required evidentiary basis.

The plaintiffs, franchisors of fast food restaurants, moved under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for orders freezing the defendants’ bank accounts and compelling disclosure of financial records after alleging diversion of franchise fees.

The court considered whether the allegedly diverted funds constituted a specific fund capable of preservation under Rule 45.02, and whether the balance of convenience supported interim relief.

Finding a serious issue to be tried and drawing an adverse inference from the defendant’s erasure of a laptop hard drive containing relevant records, the court concluded the plaintiffs had a strong claim to the disputed funds.

The defendants’ bank accounts were ordered frozen and full banking records disclosed.

Requests for a Mareva injunction against the defendant’s residence and non-competition relief were refused due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant towing company brought a motion seeking to prevent a police services board from executing a towing services contract with another bidder following a request for quotation process.

The board had disqualified the applicant’s bid as non‑compliant for failing to provide required documentation including a letter of credit in the bidder’s name, enforceable leases for equipment and pound facilities, and proper licences.

The court found that the deficiencies were substantial and that the board acted properly and consistently in enforcing the mandatory pre‑conditions in the procurement process.

As the bid was correctly deemed non‑compliant, the applicant lacked standing to challenge the contract award.