Ethan Rogers

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial default judgment after the defendants were noted in default in a dispute arising from a failed property management investment venture.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the defendants held several properties in trust and requested punitive damages.

The court held that a purchase money resulting trust arose for three properties where the plaintiffs directly advanced funds for the purchase but did not take legal title.

For two additional properties, the court found that the elements of unjust enrichment were satisfied and imposed a constructive trust.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the defendants’ misconduct did not reach the threshold of malicious and high‑handed conduct required for such damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce previous orders requiring the defendants to answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs initially abandoned a request for a contempt finding but later sought to resurrect it based on new case law.

The court refused to allow the contempt motion to proceed, finding it unfair to the defendants, and noted that contempt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt regardless.

However, the court found the defendant's answers to undertakings were insufficient 'window dressing' and issued a 'last chance' order compelling proper answers and further attendance for discovery, warning that future non-compliance could result in pleadings being struck.

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.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that the individual appellant was never properly served with the statement of claim and that there was confusion at the hearing regarding which documents were being referenced.

The appeal was allowed, the default judgment was set aside, and the appellants were granted 20 days to file a statement of defence.