Evan Moore

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 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 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.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for the balance owing on a share purchase agreement due to fraudulent misrepresentation, the court determined the costs payable to the self-represented respondents.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale because the application was devoid of merit and tainted by fraud.

The court adjusted the lawyers' hourly rates for inflation, allowed costs for time spent in pre-litigation settlement negotiations, and awarded compensation for the time the individual respondent spent representing himself, fixing total costs at $12,000.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against assets of several defendants after discovering alleged fraud by their accountant.

A co-defendant spouse moved to discharge the CPL registered against her property and to lift the freezing of her personal bank accounts, asserting sole ownership and lack of knowledge of the alleged fraud.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide full and frank disclosure and did not establish a strong prima facie case linking the spouse’s property or accounts to the alleged fraud or demonstrating a proprietary claim.

Given the absence of evidence, the prolonged delay following the ex parte order, and the prejudice to the affected party, the court lifted the injunction and discharged the CPL against the spouse’s property.