Evan Andrew Moore

The plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction was previously dismissed.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $47,884.76.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded, or alternatively, that costs should be reserved to the trial judge or fixed at $20,000.

The court found no extraordinary circumstances to reserve costs to the trial judge and held that the defendants were entitled to their costs payable forthwith.

After reducing the amount claimed for cross-examinations due to potential duplication of work among three lawyers, the court fixed the defendants' partial indemnity costs at $40,000 inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer regarding financial claims due to his failure to comply with multiple court orders, including support and disclosure orders.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion, supported by the applicant but opposed by the respondent wife from his concurrent marriage, seeking the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property to satisfy his support arrears and future obligations.

The court granted the release of funds, finding it would not prejudice the respondent wife's civil claims for misappropriation.

The court declined to strike the husband's Answer at this time, instead ordering him to provide the outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which the applicant could renew her motion.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion, arguing the respondent's claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 rather than the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court held the claim, as pleaded, sought recovery of an interest in land or damages in lieu of that interest and therefore fell under the 10-year limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court rejected new appellate arguments about contractual performance because those issues were not raised on the summary judgment motion.

It confirmed that an appeal from a failed summary judgment motion is not a vehicle for advancing fresh issues.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awards to both responding parties and costs to the appellant on the stay motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a condominium property.

The plaintiff had assigned her agreement of purchase and sale to the first defendant, who later transferred his interest to his parents (the co-defendants) without paying the plaintiff the balance owed under the assignment agreement.

The court found no triable issue for a resulting or constructive trust.

Applying the Grefford test for a CPL in a fraudulent conveyance action, the court found a high probability of success and a triable issue regarding intent to defeat creditors, but ultimately dismissed the motion because the balance of convenience weighed against granting the CPL.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether an order consolidating two actions and dismissing a summary judgment motion was final or interlocutory, and whether to stay the operation of the schedule in the motion judge’s order pending appeal.

The court found the order to be final, as it disposed of the limitation defence under the Real Property Limitations Act, and stayed the order pending appeal.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of interlocutory relief to Parkland Corporation in a lease dispute.

The court awards partial indemnity costs to Parkland, finding the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision discusses the principles governing costs, including proportionality, misconduct, and the timing of costs awards.

The decision concerns Parkland Corporation’s motion for interlocutory relief to enforce negative covenants in a lease requiring Caledon Fuels Inc. to operate a gas station as an Ultramar station with fuel supplied by Parkland.

The court grants Parkland leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and issues an injunction against Caledon and the purchaser, 16408117 Canada Inc., from breaching the lease.

The ruling addresses the legal tests for a CPL and interlocutory injunction, the effect of actual notice of a lease under the Land Titles Act, and the balance of convenience between the parties.

The applicant sought costs of $17,440.19 for a motion to consolidate civil and family proceedings.

The parties reached a consent agreement on the day of the motion.

The court found the motion was premature and could have been avoided if counsel had conferred in advance.

However, the respondents failed to comply with the rules by not filing responding materials or filing them late.

The court awarded reduced costs of $4,500 to the applicant, payable equally by the respondents.

The plaintiff security company sued two former part-time supervisors and a related corporation for breach of fiduciary duty, misuse of confidential information, and wrongful competition after they were laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants counterclaimed for constructive dismissal and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding the defendants were not fiduciaries, did not possess confidential information, and were free to work for competitors.

The court also dismissed the counterclaim, finding the defendants failed to prove any damages for constructive dismissal and failed to establish an actionable wrong for the intentional interference claim.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit organization, moved for default judgment against two defendants, Darren Pennock (former Executive Director) and Nancie Parker, whose statements of defence were struck.

The plaintiff alleged Pennock committed extensive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by misappropriating funds, and that Parker was liable for knowing assistance, willful blindness, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted judgment for damages, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages against Pennock, declaring the judgment non-dischargeable in bankruptcy due to fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The applicant landlord sought declaratory relief and vacant possession, arguing the commercial lease expired because the tenant's renewal was void due to a failure to agree on new terms.

The court found the tenant validly exercised its renewal option, as the lease's renewal provision was unconditional, requiring only timely written notice.

The court dismissed the landlord's application, holding that the "review and discussion" of renewed lease terms was to follow, not precede, the successful renewal.

The plaintiff sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property based on an alleged joint venture agreement.

The defendants opposed, claiming the agreement was fabricated and signatures were forged, and brought a cross-motion to discharge a caution the plaintiff had registered on title.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land and that the equities, including the uniqueness of the property, favoured granting the CPL.

However, the court granted the cross-motion to discharge the caution because it had been registered indefinitely in violation of the Land Titles Act requirements.

The plaintiffs sued two law firms and their lawyers for professional negligence related to a commercial asset sale and subsequent arbitration.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the claims.

The court dismissed both motions, finding genuine issues requiring a trial against the FLPC Defendants and deeming partial summary judgment inadvisable for the SWL Defendants due to the risk of inconsistent findings and the central role of credibility issues.

The appellants sought to appeal a judgment from the Superior Court of Justice.

The matter proceeded to a consent dismissal of the actions against Douglas LaFramboise.

The court approved the partial settlement by consent order, while preserving the crossclaim by Pomer & Boccia Professional Corporation and David Michael Pomer against LaFramboise.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a Settlement Agreement requiring payment of USD $200,000 upon satisfaction of a condition regarding the withdrawal of criminal charges in Panama.

The motion judge interpreted the condition as satisfied when the prosecutor provided written confirmation that charges were discontinued, despite an outstanding detention order/arrest warrant.

The appellant argued the motion judge misapprehended evidence and that the condition required both dismissal of charges and withdrawal of the detention order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding no error in the textual analysis of the Settlement Agreement and rejecting the appellant's application to adduce fresh evidence.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) brought a motion for summary judgment against Pomer & Boccia Professional Corporation (P&B), David Michael Pomer, and Douglas LaFramboise for breach of a solicitor's undertaking.

The undertaking, executed by LaFramboise on behalf of P&B personally and as agent for their clients, required P&B to pay $150,000 to TD's lawyers by a specific date, independent of the clients' refinancing efforts in a fraudulent conveyance action (FCA).

The defendants argued that TD's claim was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and principal-agent obligations due to a prior judgment obtained against their clients in the FCA.

The court found the undertaking clear and unequivocal, binding P&B personally, and held that the current action for breach of undertaking was distinct from the FCA.

The doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply as the issues and parties were different.

The motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of TD Bank.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought summary judgment against a corporation and its principals for defaulted loans and a credit card.

The court granted summary judgment for the undisputed corporate debts and the credit card debt.

However, the motion for summary judgment against the principals as personal guarantors was dismissed due to significant conflicting evidence regarding the signing of personal guarantees and alleged misrepresentation by RBC representatives.

The court found that the credibility and reliability of witnesses could not be assessed without cross-examination, which is prohibited in simplified procedure actions, thus requiring a summary trial for the guarantee claims.

The defendant son brought a motion under Rule 45.02 for an order requiring the plaintiff mother to pay into court all rents received from a disputed property, as well as occupancy rent, pending the outcome of her action for a declaration of beneficial ownership.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that anticipated future rental revenues and disputed occupancy rent do not constitute a 'specific fund' within the meaning of the rule.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, who relied on the rental income to pay for the property's utilities and expenses.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add a corporate plaintiff, Northeast Engineering & Development Ltd., and new causes of action for intentional interference with economic relations and breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendants opposed, arguing prejudice, abuse of process, and that the proposed claims were untenable.

The court granted leave, finding the proposed claims raised triable issues, the amendments complied with pleading rules, and the addition of the corporate plaintiff did not constitute undue prejudice or abuse of process, especially given the claims arose from the same facts and could have been brought in a separate action.

The Abdollahpours brought a motion to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on one property (300A Ferndale) and sought leave to register a CPL on another (300B Ferndale).

They were unsuccessful in vacating the CPL on 300A but successful in registering one on 300B.

The responding party, Banifatemi, sought costs based on a pre-motion offer to settle that mirrored the court's ultimate order.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to Banifatemi, payable by the Abdollahpours, finding that Banifatemi's offer reflected the "common sense, inevitable outcome" and that he was successful on the principal issue of maintaining the CPL on 300A.