Eugenia (Gina) Papageorgiou

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, alleging a prolonged fraud involving approximately $27 million intended for cannabis production facilities in Uruguay.

The corporate defendant, A.D. Group, failed to defend the action.

The court found that the deemed admissions established civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Default judgment was granted against A.D. Group for US $11,812,487 and CAD $500,000, and a Mareva injunction was extended.

This motion addresses the procedural issue of determining the respondent's litigation capacity.

The applicant, a co-ownership corporation, seeks an order to sell the respondent's interest due to a history of non-compliance, damage awards, and outstanding costs.

The respondent, self-represented, has a documented history of psychiatric conditions.

The court previously ordered a capacity assessment, which faced delays due to the respondent's inability to pay and conflicting information regarding consent and physician availability.

The court ordered an independent capacity assessment, to be paid for by the applicant, with a structured process for assessor selection and medical record release, emphasizing that the assessment is solely for litigation capacity and confidentiality of medical records.

This costs endorsement followed a defamation judgment where the plaintiff was awarded $85,000.

The plaintiff sought $37,589.77 in costs.

The defendants failed to submit their costs response on time, citing illness, but had previously indicated acceptance of a $35,000 offer to settle costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, emphasizing the defendants' failure to seek an extension and the plaintiff's thorough submissions.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an action under the anti-SLAPP regime (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The defendants, who successfully moved for dismissal, sought full indemnity costs totaling over $148,000.

The plaintiff argued against full indemnity, citing various factors including the nature of the litigation, power imbalances, and procedural delays.

The court, exercising its discretion, found that full indemnity was not appropriate and awarded partial indemnity costs of $60,000 to the individual defendants and $30,000 to Cybermedia, considering the specific circumstances and issues raised by the plaintiff.

A case conference was held to discuss the process for an upcoming mini trial.

The court directed the parties to exchange witness lists, proposed evidence, and any additional materials by January 20, 2024, emphasizing the principle of proportionality.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) after the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The defendant conceded liability but disputed damages and argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages by reselling the property and was not obligated to accept the defaulting defendant's abated offer.

Damages were awarded based on the difference in sale price and carrying costs, with the defendant's forfeited deposit set off against the total.

This motion concerned the court's approval of a settlement agreement in a breach of contract action.

The defendant, Mary Ozigbo, had been deemed incapable of managing her finances due to early onset Alzheimer's disease after entering into an agreement of purchase and sale for her property with the plaintiff.

The agreement failed to close, leading to litigation.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement whereby the plaintiff's action would be discontinued without costs, and the initial $30,000 deposit would be returned.

The court, pursuant to Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the settlement to be fair and reasonable and granted the order for its approval.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, his former mother-in-law's daughter and her husband, alleging an oral agreement to exchange his 20-percent beneficial interest in a jointly purchased property for sole ownership of a condominium owned by the defendant.

The defendant refused to convey the condominium after the plaintiff separated from her mother.

The court found that the plaintiff had established the oral agreements and made the required payments.

The court held that the Statute of Frauds did not bar the claim because it was not pleaded and the doctrine of part performance applied.

The court awarded the plaintiff $555,000 in damages for breach of contract, or alternatively for unjust enrichment, against the defendant who owned the condominium.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently issued a building permit in 1981 without conservation authority approval, leading to foundation failure in 2017.

The court found the claim was discovered objectively by 2013 when the plaintiff obtained an engineering report identifying unsuitable fill, and that the 15-year ultimate limitation period had also expired.

The court rejected arguments that the limitation period was tolled by a municipal claims process or by fraudulent concealment, granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.

The plaintiff, a consultant, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid fees related to securing debt capital financing.

The parties had an agreement for a 10% fee on amounts raised through the plaintiff's introductions.

The defendant obtained $2,000,000 in financing but failed to pay the agreed-upon fees and was noted in default.

The court applied the test for default judgment, finding the plaintiff established liability based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the loss of bargain, pre-judgment interest, costs, and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff, Shai DeLuca, an interior designer and public figure, sued the defendants, Foodbenders and its proprietor Kimberly Hawkins, for defamation.

The defendants had posted and reposted statements on Instagram, including calling DeLuca a "terrorist" and implying he aimed a sniper rifle at Palestinian children, and later calling him a "racist" and "killer." The court found the statements defamatory and rejected the defence of fair comment, primarily due to factual inaccuracies and the defendants' malice.

The court awarded $75,000 in general and aggravated damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, and granted a permanent injunction.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a co-ownership agreement.

The respondents opposed, arguing the applicant was no longer a party to the agreement due to a prior corporate dissolution and purported divestiture of its interest, and that the claim was statute-barred or an abuse of process.

The court granted the application, applying the competence-competence principle to hold that the arbitrator should first rule on their own jurisdiction, as there was an arguable case that the applicant remained a party and the application itself was brought within the applicable limitation period.

The plaintiff corporation sued its former Nigerian business partner and its principal arising from failed oil and gas ventures and a letter sent to Nigerian regulators and Shell after the relationship collapsed.

The court held that the parties’ written agreements made compensation contingent on successful acquisition and completion of an oil and gas asset, and implied a term requiring repayment of $405,000 advanced when no qualifying acquisition was completed.

The court further found the July 2014 letter defamatory, rejected the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege, and held that malice was established through knowing or reckless misstatements made to exert commercial pressure.

Contractual repayment was ordered against the corporate defendant alone, while defamation damages of $200,000 were awarded jointly and severally against both defendants.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, former Executive Chairman of a non-profit organization, sued the defendants over WeChat messages and a published declaration alleging election manipulation, financial opaqueness, and by-law violations.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the defendants had valid defences including justification and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, brought an ex parte motion for an interim quia timet injunction to restrain unknown individuals from blockading its railway operations in Ontario.

The blockades were part of a political protest regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm due to significant economic damage and disruption of rail traffic, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff as the protests were occurring on private property.

The interim injunction was granted.

The Law Society brought proceedings against the defendant for practicing law without a licence in breach of a court order.

The defendant previously consented to a contempt order and was penalized with community service and costs.

After failing to comply with the terms of the penalty order, a case conference was held.

The court gave the defendant one final opportunity to comply, setting new deadlines for obtaining approval for his community service organization and paying the balance of the costs.

During the fifth day of trial, the defendants sought to call a handwriting expert whose report had been served but not listed in pre-trial documents or trial management forms.

The plaintiff opposed, citing significant prejudice due to lack of opportunity to prepare a responding expert report or adjust trial strategy.

The court denied the defendants' request, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness, the prevention of trial by ambush, and adherence to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court of Canada's call for timelier and more affordable trials.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the Lin Defendants for failing to comply with previous court orders, including a Mareva injunction, which required them to provide affidavits of assets, submit to examinations under oath, and provide a monthly accounting.

The Lin Defendants failed to attend the examinations, failed to provide the required information, and could not be located.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court issued a declaration of breach, struck the Lin Defendants' pleadings, froze their assets without allowance for business expenses, and set a timetable for the plaintiffs to move for default judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of a 50% beneficial ownership interest in a property and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with her use of the property due to alleged assaults.

The defendant disputed the partnership and the assaults, claiming the plaintiff made false police reports.

The court found that the assault allegations raised a credibility issue and directed a one-day mini-trial under Rule 20 to hear oral evidence from the parties.

The plaintiff, Northbridge General Insurance Company, a surety, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, PSA Construction Inc., PSA Holdings Inc., Paul Andrews, and Kimberly Andrews, who were indemnitors under indemnity agreements.

Northbridge had issued performance and labour and material bonds with PSA Construction as principal and made payments due to PSA's default on construction contracts.

The defendants failed to defend the proceeding and were noted in default.

The court granted judgment in favour of Northbridge, finding liability based on the deemed admissions in the Statement of Claim and awarding damages for past claims paid and for current and estimated future claims, including legal expenses, as per the indemnity agreements.