Evan Tingley

The plaintiffs moved to exempt a $145,000 personal injury settlement from garnishment by a non-party judgment creditor.

The creditor argued the plaintiffs lacked clean hands due to past conduct in evading judgment.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct did not amount to a lack of clean hands and held that damages for pain and suffering, along with associated pre-judgment interest and legal costs, are exempt from garnishment.

The motion was granted, and the full settlement amount was exempted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property registered to one of the defendants, claiming the property was beneficially owned by another defendant who owed them money.

The plaintiffs also sought to amend their statement of claim and file supplementary affidavit evidence.

The court allowed the late affidavit and the amendment to the statement of claim.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a CPL, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue regarding an interest in the land, as the funds advanced were merely an unsecured loan used to pay property expenses.

The applicant and respondent owned adjoining properties with a shared laneway.

The respondent, developing a condominium, entered into an agreement to pay the applicant for encroaching on the laneway.

After the agreement's initial term expired, the respondent stopped paying but continued to obstruct the laneway.

The applicant sought $75,000 for 10 months of continued obstruction.

The court admitted a late affidavit from the applicant, found that the agreement had been implicitly extended, and alternatively found that the respondent substantially interfered with the applicant's right of way.

The court awarded the applicant $67,500 for nine months of obstruction, plus costs.

Following summary judgment in favour of a bank on a personal guarantee for corporate indebtedness, the court determined the costs of the action.

The bank had delivered a written offer to settle under Rule 49 that proposed payment of the principal amounts claimed, reduced interest, and partial indemnity costs.

The court found the offer complied with Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the bank achieved a result more favourable than its offer.

Accordingly, the bank was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $33,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable forthwith by the guarantor defendant.

Two subcontractors registered construction liens for unpaid work on a residential construction project.

The court considered whether the liens were preserved within the 45‑day statutory period under the Construction Lien Act based on the date of last supply of services or materials.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found that neither subcontractor proved that qualifying work occurred within the preservation period, and both liens had therefore expired.

The subcontractors also advanced alternative claims for restitutionary quantum meruit against the owners.

The court rejected those claims, holding that unjust enrichment remedies against owners would undermine the statutory construction lien regime where contractual relationships and lien remedies already governed the parties’ rights.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate director on his personal guarantee of the corporation's indebtedness.

The guarantor argued he was released from liability because he verbally resigned, another director forged his signature to misappropriate funds, and the bank altered the credit agreement without his consent.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the guarantee required written notice of termination, the corporation failed to implement safeguards against forgery as required by the banking agreement, and the guarantee contained an absolute liability clause permitting alterations to the principal contract.

The defendants moved to dismiss or permanently stay an Ontario action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Germany was the appropriate forum.

The dispute arose from agreements relating to the manufacture of automotive components and included forum selection clauses designating Germany as the place of jurisdiction and German law as governing law.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish jurisdiction simpliciter because no real and substantial connection to Ontario was demonstrated.

The court further found that the plaintiffs failed to show strong cause to depart from the contractual forum selection clauses.

Applying forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded that Germany was the more appropriate forum.