Evan Logan Cappe

The Owners (Jeffrey and Rachel Nagashima) brought a motion under s. 44(2) of the Construction Act to vacate Cancore Production Ltd.'s construction lien against their property by posting reduced security, specifically the basic statutory holdback of $38,000.

Cancore opposed any reduction.

The court dismissed the Owners' motion, finding they failed to convincingly demonstrate that their maximum liability to Cancore would be less than the full lien amount.

The Master found triable issues regarding the prime contract price, the extent of agreed extras, and the validity of claimed set-offs for incomplete and deficient work, concluding that the Owners had not met their evidentiary onus to justify a reduction in security.

The defendant, Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, Sardar Saadilla, alleged missing funds and mistreatment after BNS closed his accounts.

The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing all claims except for two specific issues related to a disputed $20,000 cash deposit made by the plaintiff.

The court found no genuine issues for trial regarding other claims or account balances, but determined that the circumstances surrounding the $20,000 deposit required a trial.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that varied a prior order by deleting certain paragraphs and quashing a summons to witnesses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the witnesses and their documents had no relevance to the motion or the underlying claim against the bank.

The court directed that discoveries proceed before any further motions seeking to compel evidence or documents from third parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant bank appealed an interlocutory order adjourning its summary judgment motion.

The motion judge had adjourned the motion to hear oral evidence regarding whether the bank knew or should have known that the respondent's brother was using a line of credit, secured by the respondent's condominium, for his own benefit contrary to a trust agreement.

The appellant argued that under Hryniak v. Mauldin, the motion judge was required to determine if there was a genuine issue for trial based solely on the paper record before ordering oral evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Hryniak does not restrict a motion judge's inherent equitable jurisdiction to adjourn a motion and hear oral evidence to determine if a genuine issue for trial exists.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing her claim against the respondent bank regarding a student loan.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to provide any evidence she had paid the loan, noting a previous Federal Court judgment and the appellant's own correspondence acknowledging the debt.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.