Eugenia (Gina) Papageorgiou

The Toronto Dominion Bank (TD Bank) brought a motion seeking a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property transferred by a debtor to his wife.

TD Bank had an outstanding credit card debt against the debtor, who subsequently transferred his property to his wife for no consideration, discharged an existing mortgage, and placed a new, larger mortgage on the property without making payments to TD Bank.

The court determined that a fraudulent conveyance action constitutes a sufficient interest in land for a CPL.

Applying a modified test for fraudulent conveyance claims, the court found a high probability of TD Bank recovering judgment, sufficient evidence of intent to defeat creditors, and that the balance of convenience favored issuing the CPL.

The motion for a CPL was granted.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for contempt against Mr. Sutharsan for breaching a 2021 injunction that prohibited him from providing unauthorized legal services.

Mr. Sutharsan consented to the contempt order, and the matter proceeded to a penalty hearing.

The LSO sought 30 days incarceration.

The court, applying the five-factor test for civil contempt sanctions, found Mr. Sutharsan remorseful and his breaches not egregious enough to warrant incarceration.

The court imposed a penalty of 100 hours of community service and ordered Mr. Sutharsan to pay $6,000 in costs to the LSO, payable at $300 per month.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Mareva injunction motion brought by the Plaintiffs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants due to their reprehensible conduct, including the filing of a false affidavit by one defendant, and the overall lack of merit in the defence presented by both groups of defendants, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The court emphasized the complexity of the case, the Plaintiffs' complete success, and the reasonable foreseeability of a significant costs order.

The plaintiffs, Robert Salna and North Lake Estates Inc., brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a partnership existed with the defendants, 741980 Ontario Limited and Enzo Risi, for building houses.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the claim as statute-barred.

The court found that a partnership existed based on a written agreement, admissions in pleadings and affidavits, and the parties' conduct.

The court also determined that the plaintiffs' claim was not statute-barred, applying sections 5(1)(a)(iv) and 11 of the Limitations Act, 2002, due to ongoing efforts to resolve the accounting dispute with the assistance of a third-party accountant.

The remaining issues regarding the partnership terms, misappropriations, and final accounting were reserved for further summary judgment proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion to admit fresh evidence and to dismiss the appellant's appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision for delay or as moot.

The court admitted the fresh evidence without requiring leave, finding it relevant to the motion.

The court found the appeal should be dismissed for delay due to the appellant's two-year inaction and relocation to the Congo, and also found the appeal moot as the appellant had been discharged from treatment and the capacity issue was no longer a live dispute.

The motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's amended counterclaim, alleging it was an abuse of process (a collateral attack on a prior assessment officer's report) and failed to disclose a recognized cause of action under Rules 21 and 25.

The court found that the counterclaim impermissibly sought to re-litigate issues that could have been raised before the Assessment Officer or through an appeal of the Assessment Report.

Furthermore, the defendant's own pleading indicated no monetary damages, which is a constituent element of the alleged causes of action (breach of contract, fiduciary duty, negligence, and deceit).

The motion was granted, and the defendant's counterclaim was struck without leave to amend, as the defendant had already had one opportunity to amend and failed to provide particulars.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the defendant's property, claiming a constructive trust, resulting trust, and equitable lien based on an alleged oral agreement and a loan.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while a low threshold for a triable issue was met, the equities did not favour granting a CPL.

The court noted the plaintiff's delay, the primary claim being for debt repayment rather than an interest in land, the ease of calculating damages, and the lack of evidence that the property was unique or that the defendant intended to defeat any alleged interest.

The court also expressed general concerns about ex parte motions.

The plaintiff, On Deck Capital, Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, Morley Barnaby, in a simplified procedure action.

The claim arose from a guarantee provided by the defendant for loans made by the plaintiff's predecessor to a company that subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The defendant was noted in default for failing to defend the action.

The court applied the test for default judgment, finding that the deemed admissions of fact from the Statement of Claim, combined with the plaintiff's evidence, entitled the plaintiff to judgment.

The motion was granted, awarding the plaintiff $95,208.75 plus contractual interest and partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, an employee, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful termination case.

The defendant, whose counsel failed to file materials due to inadvertence, sought an adjournment.

The court granted the adjournment with terms, converting the summary judgment motion into a summary trial.

The decision emphasized the need for a just determination on the merits, distinguishing the case from those involving deliberate delay, and noted the specific test for probationary employee dismissals.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought an action against the estate of a deceased family friend, claiming sole beneficial ownership of two properties and seeking repayment of loans evidenced by promissory notes.

The estate claimed a 50% interest in one of the properties, Bowan Court, arguing it was intended as a matrimonial home for the deceased and the plaintiff's daughter.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims regarding the first property and the loans due to pleading deficiencies and lack of corroboration.

However, the court granted the plaintiff's claim for sole ownership of Bowan Court, finding no evidence of a common intention or unjust enrichment to support the estate's trust claims, and ordered the deceased's 1% interest removed from title.

The defendant, Aescape Inc., brought a motion seeking to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction, stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, and set aside service.

The plaintiff, Intercap Equity Inc., alleged a breach of an oral option agreement to invest in Aescape.

The court found that Intercap established a "good arguable case" that a contract was formed in Ontario, satisfying the "real and substantial connection" test for jurisdiction.

The court also determined that Aescape failed to demonstrate that New York was a "clearly more appropriate forum" to displace Ontario's jurisdiction.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed on all grounds.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The parties returned to court to address alleged deficiencies in the defendants' asset disclosure affidavits, requests for living and business operating expenses, and potential limits on the injunction.

The court found the defendants' affidavits deficient and ordered further and better affidavits with supporting documentation.

The court also granted interim interim orders allowing specific monthly amounts for living and business operating expenses, but found it premature to limit the scope of the Mareva injunction until complete asset information was provided.

The plaintiff, Hussein Al-Awadi, brought a summary trial action against Nassr Al Wisamy and Nas Motors Ltd. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to the sale of shares in Nas Motors Ltd. and an outstanding loan.

The defendants' request for an adjournment was denied.

The court found Nassr Al Wisamy liable for $60,000 ($55,000 for the share purchase agreement and $5,000 for the loan agreement) plus interest.

The claim against Nas Motors Ltd. was dismissed.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims for additional damages, including credit card interest, lost business commissions, and lost opportunity from a failed real estate purchase, finding them not reasonably foreseeable or proven to be caused by the breach.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff title insurance company brought a motion to extend the time to serve its Statement of Claim, amend the claim to add a new defendant, extend an existing Norwich Order to that new defendant, and obtain a Mareva injunction against all defendants in a mortgage fraud action.

The court granted the extension of time, the amendment, and the Norwich Order, finding the plaintiff established a bona fide claim and the necessity of disclosure to trace fraudulent mortgage proceeds.

The request for a Mareva injunction was adjourned pending the completion of the plaintiff's investigations.

This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement affecting a minor plaintiff who sustained a wrist fracture from a slip and fall accident at school.

The defendants denied liability, raising issues of causation and damages.

The action settled for $30,000 at mediation.

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable, fair, and in the minor plaintiff's best interests, and also approved the counsel's fees and disbursements, noting the role of contingency fee agreements in providing access to justice.

This endorsement concerns a motion for default judgment brought by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the plaintiff's insurer, against Ndirika Ozueh, an uninsured at-fault driver.

The action arose from a 2011 car accident where Ms. Ozueh was deemed at fault.

State Farm, having settled with the plaintiff for $45,000, sought to recover these funds through a crossclaim against Ms. Ozueh, who had been noted in default.

The court applied the test for default judgment, finding that the deemed admissions and adduced evidence supported State Farm's claim for damages.

Default judgment was granted in favour of State Farm for $45,000 plus costs.

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for the minor plaintiff's Family Law Act claim, arising from a vehicle collision.

The court initially sought additional evidence regarding the minor's claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, as the proposed $40,000 settlement was solely for the mother.

Supplementary evidence confirmed the minor's life remained undisturbed and he required no treatment despite his mother's 51-day hospitalization.

The court was satisfied the settlement was in the minor's best interests and complied with Rule 7.08, granting the approval.

The plaintiff, Shobrook Corporation, was successful in its motion to amend its Statement of Claim and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $28,933, finding that while the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened and complicated the motion, it did not meet the high threshold for reprehensible conduct required for substantial indemnity.

The court also ordered a further day of discovery and the appointment of a new Case Management Judge due to the procedural difficulties encountered.

The plaintiff, My Lucky Spot, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a roofing contract.

The defendants received a significant deposit but failed to perform any work and were noted in default.

The court applied the test for default judgment, finding that the deemed admissions from the Statement of Claim established liability for all defendants, including personal liability for David Lanzilota, the directing mind, by piercing the corporate veil due to fraudulent purpose.

The court awarded damages for the lost deposit, lost revenue (limited to the amount pleaded), mitigation costs, and the increased cost of a new contract to fix the roof.

This endorsement addresses a partial summary judgment motion where the court, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Co-Operators General Insurance et al., requested submissions on the appropriateness of partial summary judgment.

Due to conflicting affidavits regarding an alleged agreement to engage an accountant for partnership profit accounting and a promise to pay, and issues of access to partnership documents and potential estoppel related to the limitation period, the court found significant credibility issues.

Consequently, a mini-trial was ordered to resolve these factual disputes, including the applicability of section 11 of the Limitations Act.