E. Durst

The defendants brought a motion for leave under the Construction Act to seek security for costs against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had sued for unpaid invoices and lost profits after the defendants terminated a construction contract due to a loss of financing.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff, a formerly dormant shell corporation with no apparent assets, had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient assets or that its claim had a good chance of success.

The court granted leave and ordered the plaintiff to post $201,765.54 as security for costs, staying the action until payment.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the self-represented respondent's affidavit after she failed to provide a witness list for trial as previously ordered.

The respondent offered no valid explanation for her non-compliance, asserting only that the applicant would interfere with her witnesses, and stated she would proceed on her own.

The court declined to strike the affidavit but directed the trial of an issue to proceed with strict time limits and a condition that the respondent may testify but cannot call any other witnesses.

The plaintiff brought a motion to declare that a default judgment debt owed by the defendant survived his assignment into bankruptcy pursuant to s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The underlying action involved a breach of trust under the Construction Act for failing to pay for construction materials.

The court held that the defendant's extrinsic evidence attempting to explain the breach of trust was inadmissible on a Rule 59.06(2) motion.

The court found that the deemed admissions from the default judgment established misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and therefore the debt survived the bankruptcy.

The defendants sought their costs of defending a civil action after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal ruled the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The plaintiff argued the defendants should have brought the WSIA application earlier to avoid unnecessary litigation costs.

The court agreed that the defendants should have been aware of the WSIA issue by the time productions were delivered and limited their costs recovery to the end of the pleadings stage, awarding $4,181.