Emma Louise Chapple

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Andrea Grebenc’s application for a judicial recount in the electoral district of Burlington, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case that a recount would change the election outcome.

The court emphasized the strict statutory timelines under section 71(1) of the Elections Act requiring recount applications to be brought and heard within four days of official tabulation.

Despite credible evidence from a scrutineer regarding improperly rejected ballots, the net difference in votes was only one, insufficient to justify a recount.

The decision underscores the importance of judicial discretion in balancing public confidence in election finality with the need for accuracy.

The defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim), Michael Jesse Nash and Terrain Strategic Alliance Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the plaintiffs (defendants by counterclaim), Hasan Saleemi and Payvault Inc., after the latter's pleadings were struck.

The court found that Nash and Terrain were beneficial owners of 49% of Payvault and qualified as "complainants" under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court determined that Saleemi and Payvault's actions, including unilateral decisions, locking out access, refusing to issue shares, and personal withdrawals, constituted oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct.

Default judgment was granted, the original claim was dismissed, and interim remedies were ordered, including a tracing order and production of financial documents to determine further remedies.

Costs were awarded to Nash and Terrain.

This was an application for a Norwich order seeking disclosure of an unredacted complaint and the identity of its anonymous author from Metrolinx, a non-party.

The applicants, Brandon Taylor, Sarah Taylor, and JAAX Inc., intended to sue the complainant for defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging significant personal and business harm.

Metrolinx opposed disclosure, citing confidentiality and privacy policies, and the complainant's refusal to consent due to safety concerns.

The court applied the five-part Norwich test, finding that the applicants had a bona fide claim and that the public interest in disclosure outweighed privacy concerns, particularly because the communication did not originate in confidence and confidentiality was not essential to the relationship between an unsolicited complainant and a Crown corporation.

The application was granted, ordering Metrolinx to disclose the complainant's identity.

The appellant, a condominium unit holder, appealed the dismissal of his application against the condominium corporation regarding noise complaints from an adjacent unit.

The original application sought relief under the Condominium Act, primarily an oppression remedy (s. 135), and damages.

The application judge found the corporation's response to the complaints reasonable and dismissed the application, noting that the unit owner causing the noise was not a party, precluding certain remedies.

On appeal, the appellant's new counsel attempted to re-frame the argument to focus on a compliance order under s. 134 (nuisance).

The Court of Appeal refused to entertain this new argument, emphasizing that it was not properly raised below and would require fact-finding.

The Court affirmed the application judge's finding that the corporation's conduct was not oppressive, as it had taken reasonable steps to address the complaints, and that the requested remedy of unit renovation could not be ordered without the affected unit owner being a party.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, FUNG-BC Holdings Ltd., sought a bankruptcy order against Gary Man Kin Ng based on two outstanding debts: a $4 million guarantee and a $5.194 million IIROC financial penalty.

Mr. Ng disputed the guarantee debt, arguing it was covered by a prior settlement agreement and covenant not to sue with Bridging Finance Inc., and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The court found the settlement documents unambiguously excluded the $4 million loan, and while the IIROC debt alone wouldn't suffice, it could be considered alongside the valid guarantee debt.

The court dismissed Mr. Ng's motion and granted the bankruptcy order, finding he had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to meet significant liabilities.