6 total
Court granted a 90-day stay of a writ of possession to allow property sale.
The defendants sought an urgent 90-day stay of a writ of possession obtained by the plaintiffs over their home, along with a notice to vacate.
They challenged fees included in the plaintiffs' mortgage discharge statement, arguing they violated the Interest Act.
The defendants wished to return to the home to refinance or sell it within the stay period.
The court granted the 90-day stay with conditions, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs and noting that the stay would allow the defendants to challenge the disputed fees.
The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
Successful applicants awarded $21,400 in costs following an application to disqualify an arbitrator.
The applicants were successful in an application to disqualify an arbitrator and sought partial indemnity costs of $21,411.22.
The respondents argued the amount was too high and proposed $8,761.96, noting the brief hearing.
The court found the applicants' proposed amount was within the norm for a short but legally significant application.
The court exercised its discretion to award the applicants costs in the rounded amount of $21,400, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.
Successful defendants awarded $50,995.12 in partial indemnity costs following dismissal of plaintiff's injunction motion.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants' costs were excessive and that their conduct warranted a denial of costs.
The court found that while the plaintiff's motion was ill-conceived, its conduct was not reprehensible enough to justify elevated costs.
Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $50,995.12.
The court dismissed a cannabis franchisor's motion for a mandatory injunction due to lack of contractual basis and insufficient evidence of irreparable harm.
The plaintiff, Lightbox Enterprises Ltd., moved for interlocutory injunctive orders against the defendant, 2708227 Ontario Inc., concerning their business relationship involving retail cannabis stores.
Lightbox alleged breach of license and service agreements and misuse of confidential information and trademarks ("Dutch Love""Hobo Cannabis"). 2708227 Ontario Inc. counter-claimed, asserting the relationship was a franchise governed by the Arthur Wishart Act and that Lightbox failed to provide disclosure, entitling 2708227 Ontario Inc. to rescind the agreements.
The court dismissed Lightbox's motion for injunctive relief, finding no contractual basis for the primary relief sought, insufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant.
Defendant by counterclaim ordered to post $70,000 in further security for costs ahead of trial.
The plaintiff (defendant to the counterclaim) brought a motion seeking an order that the defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim) post further security for costs in the amount of $174,000.00.
The court found the requested amount excessive, noting inflated estimates for lawyers' time.
Exercising its broad discretion, the court ordered the defendant to post a further all-inclusive installment of $70,000.00 as security for costs of the counterclaim.
Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendant in the cause, as the ordered amount was closer to their position and they had attempted to settle.
The court dismissed the defendants' motions to strike, finding the plaintiff's claims were neither an abuse of process nor statute-barred.
The defendants, Garry Shapiro and Kaveh Najafi, brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
Shapiro sought to set aside a noting of default and dismiss the action as an abuse of process and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, based on a prior dismissed action from 2011.
Najafi sought to strike the statement of claim, arguing it was statute-barred.
The court found that the 2015 action was not an abuse of process as the prior action was not decided on its merits.
Regarding the limitation period, the court applied Section 11 of the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the family law proceedings between the plaintiff and Najafi, which resulted in a Family Order in 2014, suspended the limitation period.
The Family Order also created new rights and obligations, giving rise to fresh causes of action.
The court also noted the potential applicability of the Real Property Limitations Act, which provides a ten-year limitation period.
Consequently, the defendants failed to establish that the 2015 action was statute-barred.
The motions to dismiss were largely dismissed, with the exception of setting aside the noting in default against Shapiro by consent.
