Ethan M. Rogers

The moving intervenor, a law firm holding writs of execution for unpaid legal fees against the defendants, moved to set aside a trial judgment that granted the plaintiffs specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiffs cross-moved for a declaration that the law firm's writs, registered after the agreement was signed, did not bind the land.

The court dismissed the law firm's motion, finding it lacked standing as an unsecured creditor to reopen the trial under Rule 52.01(3).

The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion, declaring that upon signing the agreement, the vendors conveyed equitable title, and subsequent writs of execution could not attach to the purchasers' equitable interest.

The plaintiff brought an action for constructive dismissal against her former employer.

The defendants counterclaimed against the plaintiff and her parents, alleging conspiracy, misrepresentation, and breach of contract regarding the plaintiff's salary and potential tax liabilities.

The defendants to the counterclaim moved for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim, finding that the plaintiffs by counterclaim failed to adduce any evidence of actual damages suffered, which is an essential element of the torts alleged.

The plaintiff's former solicitors brought a motion to be removed from the record after the solicitor-client relationship broke down.

Before the motion was sworn, new counsel undertook to place herself on the record, rendering the motion moot.

Despite this, the former solicitors proceeded with the motion and sought $5,000 in costs.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding the motion was unnecessary, foreseeably moot, and vastly disproportionate to the issues and amounts in question.

The plaintiff, a former employee of the Royal Bank of Canada in British Columbia, moved to Ontario and sought employment at an Ontario branch.

She alleged that a British Columbia-based employee defamed her to Ontario employees, resulting in the withdrawal of an employment offer and constructive dismissal.

The defendants moved to stay the action, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that British Columbia was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a presumptive connection to Ontario based on the tort of defamation occurring there, and held that the defendants failed to establish that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking punitive damages against his former lawyer and paralegal, alleging they fraudulently misrepresented the settlement amounts of his tort and accident benefits claims to pocket the difference.

The court found that while the evidence against the paralegal was compelling and highly suspicious, the conflicting evidence regarding the lawyer's involvement and the requirement to prove actual loss for civil fraud necessitated a full trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend a statement of claim to plead that certain corporate defendants were sham entities incorporated to perpetrate a fraud and to seek relief piercing the corporate veil against individuals controlling the corporations.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendment introduced a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but instead sought an additional remedy arising from facts already pleaded, namely alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and misuse of corporate entities.

Alternatively, the court found that even if a new cause of action were pleaded, the limitation period had not expired because discoverability arose only after examinations for discovery revealed that the corporations conducted no legitimate insurance business.

Leave to amend was granted.

Following a successful motion compelling production of bank statements relating to the receipt and disbursement of trust funds, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs representing 70% of its legal fees and full recovery of disbursements.

The responding parties argued the requested costs were disproportionate given the modest amount of the underlying claim and alleged scheduling issues.

The court found the respondents’ conduct unreasonable in withholding documents and forcing the motion.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles of proportionality and fairness, the court fixed costs in favour of the moving party.

The plaintiff alleged breach of a verbal and written agreement for arena ice time required to operate a junior hockey team and related programs.

The court found that a binding verbal contract for ice rentals for a mini-camp, summer program, and winter league had been formed and later confirmed in writing, and that the defendant breached the agreement by refusing to provide the ice time after external pressure from hockey organizations.

However, the plaintiff’s claim for substantial lost profits from the hockey enterprise and associated European tours was rejected as speculative due to lack of expert evidence, comparable data, or reliable business projections.

Applying principles of remoteness, proof of damages, and mitigation, the court held the plaintiff failed to establish loss of future profits on a balance of probabilities.

The court awarded only proven start-up expenses and nominal damages for breach.

Following the dismissal of the respondents’ motion, the court considered the applicant’s entitlement to costs.

The respondents argued that no costs should be awarded because the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in their motion.

The court rejected that submission and held that the applicant was completely successful and therefore entitled to costs.

Although the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, the court found that the respondents’ conduct did not rise to the level required for such an award.

Costs were fixed at $6,800 payable forthwith.

The respondents brought a motion seeking to set aside earlier orders made by other judges of the Superior Court of Justice, including orders validating service, ordering contempt proceedings, and issuing garnishment.

The moving parties argued insufficient service, improper commencement of the proceeding by application under Rule 14.05(3), and lack of personal service for contempt proceedings.

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside or overrule orders made by other judges absent authority under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court further found that the moving parties failed to meet the requirements of Rule 38.01 and that full and fair disclosure had been made on the earlier motion.

The motion was dismissed.