Evan Andrew Moore

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 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 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 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 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 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.

The defendant municipality moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered by the plaintiff developer in an action seeking specific performance of a preliminary agreement for redevelopment and sale of municipal lands.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had a reasonable claim to an interest in land under s.103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that the preliminary agreement was not a binding contract because essential terms remained unsettled and the transaction depended on further agreements and negotiations, including participation by a third-party development partner that had withdrawn.

As the agreement was incapable of specific performance and the plaintiff therefore had no reasonable claim to an interest in land, the certificate of pending litigation was discharged.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s action concerning the sale of a residential property.

The plaintiff alleged damages including recovery of funds from a line of credit secured against the property, the difference between the sale price and fair market value, and loss of rental income.

The court held that by signing Minutes of Settlement the plaintiff had agreed to the sale price and payment of encumbrances and was therefore estopped from challenging the transaction.

The court further found that the action was commenced outside the applicable limitation period.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the entire claim.

The court addressed costs following a motion to set aside a purported ex parte default judgment that bore a forged judicial signature.

The court found that the plaintiffs had fabricated the judgment by copying and pasting the judge’s signature and had circulated the fake order to opposing parties and regulatory bodies as if it were a valid court judgment.

The court concluded that the conduct constituted a fraudulent and scurrilous attack on the administration of justice and amounted to reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous behaviour.

Applying the principles governing full indemnity costs, the court held that the defendants were entitled to full indemnity costs as a form of chastisement and deterrence.

The plaintiffs were also barred from taking further steps in the proceeding until the costs were paid in full.