G. Bowden

The plaintiff bank brought a motion to transfer a Small Claims Court application commenced by the defendant, Go To Loans Inc., to the Superior Court.

The defendant's application sought to discharge the plaintiff's PPSA lien against a vehicle over which the defendant asserted a repair and storage lien.

The court held that while the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate RSLA liens, it lacks jurisdiction to discharge a PPSA lien, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

However, rather than transferring the Small Claims Court matter without consent, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the plaintiff's Superior Court action to the Small Claims Court, allowing the defendant the opportunity to amend its application.

The applicant bank sought to enforce a default judgment by applying for a reference and judicial sale of the respondent's real property under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than proceeding with a standard sheriff's sale under the Execution Act.

The applicant argued that judicial sales are generally superior and more cost-effective, relying on an affidavit from its counsel's partner.

The court dismissed the application, reaffirming its previous decision in Wong that a sheriff's sale is the statutorily prescribed method for enforcing a writ of seizure and sale against real property, and a judicial sale should only be ordered in special circumstances, which were not present here.

Following a motion regarding undertakings and refusals where the RBC defendants were largely successful, they sought substantial indemnity costs of $10,350 due to the plaintiff's uncooperative conduct and delays.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not reach the required threshold of abusive or reprehensible behaviour.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $7,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the plaintiff.

In an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from fraud charges, the RBC defendants sought an order requiring the plaintiff's estate trustee to reattend personally to answer questions previously refused on discovery.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants improperly contacted the court and that written answers would suffice.

The court found the defendants' communication was proper and ordered the estate trustee to reattend at his own expense, as follow-up questions would be necessary and a personal attendance would be more efficient than written answers.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery in an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from a failed business loan application and subsequent fraud charges.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding the estate trustee's previous business dealings, prior fraud conviction, and the factual basis for the malicious prosecution claim.

The court also ordered the defendants to answer specific questions regarding the information provided to the RCMP, while upholding refusals for questions that were argumentative, irrelevant, or already answered.

The defendants were largely successful on the motion.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant auto collision company for the value of a financed truck.

The individual defendant had financed the truck through the plaintiff but gave it to the corporate defendant to convert into a tow truck and use in its fleet.

The corporate defendant claimed a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for conversion, repair, and storage costs, and subsequently transferred ownership to itself.

The court found the corporate defendant failed to comply with the Act, had no valid lien, and wrongfully converted the vehicle, awarding the plaintiff damages based on the truck's appraised value.

An interpleader motion sought a declaration that a property transferred into the son’s name was held in trust for the mother and therefore not exigible by the son’s judgment creditors.

The responding bank argued the declaration of trust lacked evidentiary support and questioned its authenticity.

The court found the record contained deficiencies but also some evidence suggesting a possible trust, raising credibility issues unsuitable for determination on the motion record.

As a result, the motion for declaratory relief was dismissed and a trial of an issue was directed to determine beneficial ownership and the priority of competing writs of execution.

The applicant bank paid funds into court following the demise of a payroll processing company.

The company had mistakenly overpaid the Canada Revenue Agency, leading to a shortfall in its mixed trust accounts.

The court had to determine whether the remaining interpleaded funds should be distributed to claimants on a pro rata basis or by tracing specific funds to specific claimants.

The court held that the funds were held in a mixed trust account and, applying the pari passu ex post facto pro rata approach, ordered the funds to be distributed pro rata among all claimants.