D. Wagner

The defendant brought a third motion to dismiss the action for delay, which was dismissed on terms with an expedited timetable.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found that although the defendant was unsuccessful, it was not unreasonable to bring the motion given the 15-year history of the action and previous judicial criticism of the plaintiff's delay.

The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff intends to bring a motion to order the sale of the subject property.

The defendants do not necessarily object to the sale, but there is no agreement on the terms.

The court established a timetable for the motion materials and scheduled a case conference to explore resolving the contested issues before the motion hearing.

The defendant estate brought a third motion to dismiss the plaintiff's 15-year-old action for delay.

The plaintiff seeks a declaration of beneficial ownership of a property.

The court focused on the delay subsequent to the second dismissal motion in 2017.

The court found that the delay since 2017 was not intentional, contumelious, or inordinate, and was largely explained by the original defendant's death and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that a fair trial remained possible because the action overlapped significantly with an ongoing application by the estate, and much of the evidence was preserved through affidavits and discovery transcripts.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but strict terms were imposed to move the action to trial.

The plaintiff and defendants were 50 percent owners of a corporation whose sole asset was a property intended for gas station development.

Following a breakdown in their relationship, the defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's consent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an oppression remedy to remove the defendants from management, while the defendants sought to wind up the corporation.

The court dismissed both requests, finding no oppressive conduct and concluding that a winding up was not just and equitable at this stage.

The court granted a motion to rescind the sale of the property and ordered the return of the purchase funds held in court, less outstanding costs owed to the plaintiff.