Gary J. McCallum

The defendants, Guangcheng Zhu and Guru Constrarchit Ltd., brought a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments, finding that while the motion was brought promptly and there was an arguable defense for conversion, breach of trust, and punitive damages, the defendants failed to provide a plausible explanation for their default, having made a conscious decision not to participate in the proceedings until their bank accounts were frozen.

The court partially granted the motion, setting aside only the portion of the default judgment related to conversion, breach of trust, and punitive damages ($99,628.58), while upholding the remainder of the judgment, including damages for breach of contract and costs.

Weiyan Li brought motions for default judgment against Guru Constrarchit Ltd. and Guangcheng Zhu (its principal) in two related construction actions, after they failed to engage with the proceedings following removal orders.

The court granted default judgment, finding Guru and Mr. Zhu liable for breach of contract, conversion of project funds, and breach of trust due to significant deficiencies in construction work, misappropriation of funds, and Mr. Zhu's fraudulent conduct and domination of Guru.

Damages were awarded based on diminution in value rather than cost of cure, along with punitive damages and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a contested status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to prevent the dismissal of her historic sexual abuse action for delay.

The defendants argued for dismissal due to the plaintiff's delay and alleged prejudice.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, attributing significant portions to the defendants' procedural tactics and unusual circumstances like a catastrophic office fire suffered by plaintiff's counsel.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, noting their shared responsibility for delays and lack of urgency.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and a timetable was imposed for the action to proceed to trial.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her various claims against the defendants, which included compensation for a lost diamond ring, a stolen outfit, unreplaced locks, car damage, and legal expenses arising from alleged false statements to the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove her claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

This was a costs decision following dismissal of a summary judgment motion and granting of a cross-motion in a family civil dispute.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the motions, the court held they had also caused wasted costs through the commencement of a Small Claims Court action and the need to amend the pleadings.

The court declined to award immediate costs and instead ordered fixed costs in the cause.

If the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, they will recover $10,000 all inclusive for the two motions; if the defendant ultimately succeeds, she will receive no costs for those motions.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims arising from alleged oral agreements among siblings relating to a condominium investment in China and loans allegedly advanced to the defendant to purchase a property in Ontario.

The defendant argued lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, abuse of process due to a parallel Small Claims action, and that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that it possessed in personam jurisdiction over the Ontario-resident defendant and that the claims sought damages rather than a declaration of title to foreign land.

The court further concluded that Ontario was not an inappropriate forum and that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, including the existence of the alleged agreements and the discoverability of the limitation periods.

The defendant’s summary judgment motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs’ cross‑motion to amend pleadings and transfer and consolidate the Small Claims Court action was granted.

The appellants appealed a trial management order in a child protection proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the exercise of discretion.

The Court clarified that the statutory requirement for a child to be 'brought before the court' does not mandate physical presence in the courtroom, and confirmed that the governing legislation permits a bifurcated, non-continuous hearing.