G. Limberis

The defendant moved to discharge an ex parte order granting the plaintiff leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against its land.

The plaintiff claimed an easement over the defendant's land pursuant to a Storm Water Pond Agreement entered into with a previous owner.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure before the ex parte master, including misrepresenting the nature of the alleged easement and failing to disclose a rejected development application by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.

The court set aside the ex parte order, concluding the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in the land, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendant.

The defendant franchisor sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to transfer the venue of a franchise dispute from Hamilton to Kitchener.

The moving party argued that leave should be granted under Rule 62.02(4)(a) because there are conflicting decisions in Ontario regarding whether a plaintiff's choice of venue must have a rational connection to the action before the court engages in a holistic balancing of factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).

The court agreed that two conflicting lines of cases exist (the Siemens threshold approach versus the Hallman holistic approach) and granted leave to appeal to the Divisional Court to provide appellate guidance on the issue.