Gary M. Caplan

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, emailed the court requesting directions to schedule a motion to set aside the vexatious litigant judgment.

The court noted that the judgment prohibits the moving party from instituting any motion without leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which must be obtained from the case management judge.

The court appointed Justice W. S. Chalmers as the Case Management Judge and directed the moving party to make any requests to him.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for production orders and examination of the defendants in aid of an existing Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The only contentious issue was a request to order a non-party exchange to provide information regarding the defendants' assets.

The court granted the order, finding it necessary in aid of execution of the Mareva injunction, and rejected the defendants' argument that the request was an improper attempt to gather evidence for a contempt motion.

The buyer (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim) sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The seller (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) argued the agreement was null and void because the buyer failed to waive a home inspection condition before the deadline.

The court found that the seller's real estate agent made misrepresentations to the buyer regarding the seller's availability to sign an amending agreement and his agreement to a price abatement.

These misrepresentations breached the duty of honest contractual performance and caused the buyer to delay delivering the waiver.

As a result, the seller could not rely on the expiry of the condition period.

The court granted specific performance to the buyer.

A case management conference was held regarding four defamation actions against the defendant, who failed to attend.

The defendant had previously failed to deliver motion materials for a stay and responding materials for summary judgment motions.

The court noted the defendant in default in one of the actions for failing to file a statement of defence as ordered.

Directions and deadlines were set for the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and default judgment.

A case management conference was held regarding the respondent's failure to follow court orders in connection with her pending appeal of a contempt judgment.

The respondent did not attend the conference.

The court found that the respondent breached a previous order directing her to inquire about the status of transcripts required for her appeal and to provide the correspondence to the court.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the previous directions by November 15, 2019, and to explain her non-compliance, warning that failure to do so could result in further contempt proceedings.

The self-represented defendant requested a decision on her request to bring a stand-alone recusal motion and an emergency case management conference.

The court directed that the recusal issues be brought forward in response to the pending motion for an interlocutory injunction, dismissing the request for a stand-alone motion.

The request for an emergency case management conference was also denied as no urgent issue was raised.

The self-represented defendant emailed the court requesting to reschedule a case management conference set for September 14, 2018, without providing reasons for her unavailability.

The case management judge noted the defendant's repeated failure to follow directions to explain scheduling conflicts, characterizing her conduct as unacceptable passive-aggressive behaviour.

The court ordered the defendant to immediately provide particulars of any prior court commitment or other justification, failing which the conference would proceed as scheduled.

The plaintiffs sued for specific performance of an abortive real estate transaction after failing to close on the scheduled date due to a loss of financing.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the defendants did not agree to extend the closing date and were not acting in bad faith by insisting on the contractually agreed closing date.

The plaintiffs were not ready, willing, and able to close, and the defendants validly terminated the agreement and forfeited the deposit.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The applicants requested an urgent, ex parte case conference and interim relief regarding a fresh proceeding alleging the respondent breached an injunction through a severe internet attack.

The court declined to proceed without notice to the respondent, instead scheduling a mandatory urgent case conference and directing the applicants to serve the respondent with the materials.

In the context of numerous proceedings involving a vexatious litigant, the respondent sought the recusal of the case management judge and failed to comply with previous court directions, citing an intention to appeal.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction, noted that the judgment is not stayed pending appeal without a specific order from the Court of Appeal, and directed the respondent to comply with the required materials by a final deadline, failing which the underlying litigation would proceed based on her non-compliance.

The plaintiff lawyer brought an action against his former client for unpaid legal fees totaling $37,324.55.

The defendant client defended the claim and brought a counter-claim for $500,000, alleging professional negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court reviewed the history of the 17 files the plaintiff handled for the defendant and applied the Cohen v. Kealey factors to assess the reasonableness of the fees.

The court found no evidence to support the counter-claim and dismissed it.

The plaintiff was awarded $20,450.52 for services rendered and unpaid, after accounting for some set-offs and unbilled descriptions.

The plaintiffs agreed to purchase a commercial property from the defendants, intending to use the entire space as a restaurant.

The plaintiffs refused to close the transaction after discovering zoning restrictions limited restaurant use to half the space.

They sued for the return of their deposit and damages, alleging the vendor made oral representations and a collateral agreement guaranteeing the zoning and promising to return the deposit if issues arose.

The vendor counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding they did not reasonably rely on the vendor's representations and that the written agreement expressly excluded collateral agreements.

The vendor's counterclaim was allowed, and damages were awarded based on the property's subsequent sale by the mortgagee.