Graeme Oddy

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction related to an alleged $1.4 million renovation fraud.

A defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the order against him, and a non-party sought relief from an order compelling his examination under oath.

The court extended the Mareva order, dismissed the defendant's cross-motion as premature due to missing financial disclosure, and suspended the examination order against the non-party due to lack of service and reliance on implausible hearsay evidence.

The court also provided strict directions regarding the proper use of CaseLines and hyperlinking for future attendances.

The plaintiff in a solicitors' negligence action brought a motion to remove the defendants' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest.

The plaintiff claimed the defendants' lawyer obtained confidential information about him during a prior, allegedly related action where the lawyer represented a different party.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding no factual nexus between the prior action and the current negligence claim, and concluding that a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would not find removal necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The defendants moved to set aside ex parte orders that granted the plaintiffs certificates of pending litigation against certain properties and appointed a monitor over two furniture store franchises.

The dispute arose from an intra-family sale of the franchises, where the plaintiffs alleged the defendants made misrepresentations about the transaction's proceeds and the inclusion of additional properties.

The defendants argued the ex parte orders should be set aside for failure to make full and fair disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material non-disclosure, and maintained the certificates of pending litigation and the monitor, concluding that a triable issue remained and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The defendant brought a motion to compel production of documents referenced in an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff's solicitor.

The affidavit was filed in response to a motion to quash the plaintiff's late appeal and referenced communications between the plaintiff and its counsel regarding the intent to appeal.

The court found that the affidavit 'entered the fray' and constituted an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

However, because the waiver had not yet become final, the court permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the impugned affidavit and replace it with one from a corporate representative to avoid the production order.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a court-ordered deadline for serving an amended statement of claim to add a winter maintenance contractor as a defendant.

The presumptive limitation period had expired, but a previous order allowed the addition based on discoverability, setting a service deadline of March 31, 2016.

The plaintiff failed to meet this deadline and delayed over two years before bringing this motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the delay, show inadvertence, or prove that the proposed defendant would not suffer prejudice.