Gregory W. Bowden

The plaintiff alleged it was defrauded into depositing funds into a TD Bank account and commenced an action against the bank and a 'John Doe' defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order requiring the bank to disclose the identity of the account holder to advance the litigation.

The court granted the motion, finding that the disclosure was in the interests of justice and could be ordered by analogy to the discovery rules under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the sale of a vending machine business.

The plaintiff had obtained an order for substituted service but failed to serve the complete statement of claim on the defendant.

Despite the defendant notifying the plaintiff's counsel of the incomplete service and requesting the full claim to file a defence, the plaintiff's counsel proceeded to note the defendant in default and obtained a default judgment.

The court applied the five-part test from Mountain View Farms and found that the motion was brought promptly, there was a plausible excuse for the default, the defendant had an arguable defence on the merits, the balance of prejudice favoured the defendant, and upholding the judgment would negatively affect the integrity of the administration of justice.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants following a default on a car loan agreement.

The plaintiff sought an order directing a reference to determine issues relating to the judicial sale of the defendants' property, rather than proceeding with a sheriff's sale.

The defendants opposed the motion, seeking an adjournment and a stay of the judgment, but had not moved to set aside the default judgment.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a reference, finding a judicial sale advantageous, but stayed enforcement for 60 days to allow the defendants a final opportunity to move to set aside the default judgment.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's litigation guardian, arguing he was in a conflict of interest as an unsatisfied judgment creditor of the plaintiff.

The court found that the litigation guardian lacked the required indifference to the outcome of the litigation due to his status as a judgment creditor.

The motion was granted, the litigation guardian was removed, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed in his place.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion to remove Murray Maltz as counsel for the defendants Bouzios and Nikolaidis, alleging that Maltz would be a necessary witness at trial due to funds from alleged frauds passing through his trust account.

RBC sought Maltz's evidence to trace the funds.

The court applied the test for removing counsel who may be a witness, considering factors such as the stage of proceedings, likelihood of the lawyer being called, good faith of the moving party, significance of evidence, and impact on choice of counsel.

The court found that the information sought could likely be obtained through documentary disclosure and examinations for discovery, making Maltz's testimony at trial not necessarily required.

The motion was dismissed as premature, upholding the defendants' right to chosen counsel.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought partial summary judgment against Yorktown Motors and Nisan Paranthaman.

RBC had financed Paranthaman's purchase of a Mercedes-Benz from Yorktown, which was later discovered to be "re-VINned" and potentially stolen.

RBC's claim against Paranthaman was to be dismissed, but it sought judgment against Yorktown based on the Loan Program Dealer Agreement (LPDA), arguing Yorktown breached representations and warranties, making it liable regardless of fault.

Yorktown disputed RBC's interpretation of the LPDA and argued that granting partial summary judgment would be inappropriate given the ongoing multi-party litigation involving crossclaims and third-party claims against other auto dealers, an individual, and the Crown, which could lead to inconsistent findings.

The court dismissed RBC's motion for summary judgment, finding it premature due to insufficient evidence establishing the vehicle was stolen and the significant risk of inconsistent factual findings at a subsequent trial.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced a proceeding seeking over $170 million in damages against the defendants.

The court dismissed the proceeding in writing pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the 19-page pleading was void of any known cause of action, sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction, and was laced with conjecture and speculation, rendering it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action seeking over $1.5 billion in damages against the defendants.

The court dismissed the proceeding in writing pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the 17-page pleading was void of any known cause of action, sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction, and was laced with conjecture and speculation, rendering it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, Nissan Canada Finance, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for amounts outstanding on a vehicle lease.

The defendants leased a vehicle which immediately went into arrears and was later involved in an accident and sold at auction.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial, including the amount owing, whether the plaintiff had to pursue insurance, and the vehicle's sale price.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the amounts were readily ascertainable from the contract and the plaintiff had no obligation to pursue the defendants' insurer.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff bank brought a Rule 20 motion for summary judgment against a borrower and guarantor for outstanding balances on several credit facilities, including personal and business loans.

The responding party admitted liability for certain personal loans but asserted that she had resigned as director of the borrowing company and had notified the bank that she would no longer be responsible for corporate debts.

She argued the bank accepted this notice and was estopped from enforcing the loans.

The court found significant conflicting evidence regarding whether notice was provided, whether the bank accepted any release of liability, and the meaning of various correspondence and alleged discussions between the parties.

Because credibility issues and material facts were in dispute, the court held that a full appreciation of the evidence required viva voce testimony and could not be achieved on a summary judgment motion.

A defendant sought costs following the discontinuance of an action commenced in a different county that duplicated relief already pursued in an existing representative proceeding.

The court considered Rule 23.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “justified action test” applicable to discontinued actions.

It held the plaintiff had no justification for commencing the second action because it duplicated claims already being advanced in an ongoing Toronto proceeding.

The court characterized the conduct as violating the rule against multiplicity of proceedings and as litigation behaviour warranting sanction.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendant despite the absence of formal service of the statement of claim.

The applicants sought a representation order under Rule 10.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permitting them to represent 416 claimants who had used payroll processing services and alleged that trust funds were misapplied by a bank.

The underlying dispute concerned funds withdrawn from employers’ accounts for payroll and tax remittances that were deposited into mixed trust accounts and partially applied to reduce the payroll processor’s indebtedness to the bank or transferred to a related entity.

The bank opposed the representation order, arguing that two separate transactions created distinct issues among claimants.

The court held that common issues existed because liability for the alleged breaches of trust would affect all claimants collectively and distribution of any recovery would be shared.

A representation order was granted and a related unopposed motion concerning distribution of funds held by a government agency was also authorized.

The court provided directions in an interpleader proceeding concerning funds paid into court following the cessation of payroll services operations by a corporate respondent.

Approximately $2.39 million held in a payroll account had been paid into court, and an advisor was appointed to administer claims by numerous clients asserting entitlement to the funds.

The advisor reported that a portion of the fund could be traced to specific claimants while the remainder was co‑mingled and proposed a distribution allocating traceable funds to identified clients and the balance pro rata.

The court directed further reporting, service of materials to claimants, and procedures for claimants to file notices of appearance and submissions regarding the proposed distribution.

A further hearing was scheduled to determine whether the proposed distribution or an alternative should be approved.