Frederick L. Myers

The applicant brought a motion and application to set aside a 2009 order declaring the respondent sole owner of a Toronto property and directing rectification of the land titles register.

The earlier order had been obtained without notice to the applicant.

The court found that the respondent failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts regarding her ability to locate and communicate with the applicant at the time the order was obtained.

As a result, the order was set aside under Rule 39.01(6) and the parcel register was directed to be restored to its prior state, with remaining ownership issues to be determined at trial.

During a motion hearing, the judge raised the potential applicability of Rule 57.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding possible costs consequences for counsel based on issues identified in the motion materials.

The defendant moved for the judge’s recusal, arguing that raising the rule created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that merely identifying concerns arising from the written record and inviting submissions does not demonstrate bias or predisposition.

Judges are entitled to form preliminary impressions from motion materials and to alert counsel to potential issues so that they may address them fully.

The recusal motion was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a Registrar’s order dismissing their wrongful dismissal action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The delay arose after the employee-plaintiff died of cancer and his widow temporarily lacked financial means to continue the litigation, while the plaintiffs’ former lawyer failed to notify the estate trustee of the Status Notice issued by the Registrar.

The court held that the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendant demonstrated no non-compensable prejudice.

The judge emphasized that the action had not been plagued by delay and that the absence of notice of the Status Notice weighed strongly in favour of relief.

The Registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside and the action reinstated.

A non-profit housing co‑operative applied under the Co‑operative Corporations Act for an order declaring that the respondent’s membership and occupancy rights were terminated, together with a writ of possession and judgment for arrears of housing charges.

The respondent argued that eviction would be unfair due to disputes about subsidies, alleged accounting errors, and significant personal hardship.

The court held that co‑operative eviction decisions are generally entitled to deference and that the respondent could not dispute arrears without first paying the disputed amounts into court as required by the statute.

The respondent had ceased making housing payments for approximately nineteen months, resulting in substantial arrears.

The court concluded that financial hardship alone does not make eviction unfair and granted the requested relief.

An appeal from a master's discovery order requiring a defendant manufacturer to produce documents concerning aircraft engine parts, counterweights, and related accidents beyond those directly at issue in the action.

The appellants argued the order was disproportionate under Rule 29.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it required production spanning decades and numerous models.

The court held the master properly determined that the documents were relevant to pleaded product liability and duty to warn claims.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating the burden or cost of production, the proportionality argument failed.

The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the responding co‑defendant.