Gregory Wrigglesworth

The applicant brought a motion for a declaration that the respondent was in contempt of an Ontario court order that recognized a Polish court order.

The underlying order required the respondent to provide the applicant with access to all books and documents of their jointly owned, now-liquidated business.

The court found that the respondent intentionally breached the clear and unequivocal order by failing to provide access to documents from the period the business was in operation.

The respondent was found in contempt and ordered to provide a complete list of documents and access to them, with the motion adjourned to allow him to purge his contempt.

The defendants moved for security for costs against the plaintiff, Hockeyfest Incorporated, under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied a two-stage test: first, whether the plaintiff was a corporation with insufficient assets (which was conceded), and second, whether justice demanded the case proceed without security, considering impecuniosity and the merits.

The court found Hockeyfest failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity and that its claims against all defendants had very little chance of success due to its own non-compliance with contractual terms and misrepresentations.

Consequently, the court ordered Hockeyfest to post significant security for costs to each defendant, prohibiting further steps until paid, and allowing for dismissal if not posted within 30 days.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $25,000 in damages for a defectively installed stamped concrete driveway and sidewalk.

The trial judge found that the colour and design were essential terms of the contract and awarded damages based on the cost to remove and replace the concrete.

On appeal, the appellants argued damages should have been assessed based on diminution of value.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's choice of the measure of damages, given the factual finding on the importance of aesthetics.

However, the court reduced the damages to $17,200 to account for the $9,000 already paid by the respondents, preventing a windfall.

The plaintiff, The Canada Trust Company, Trustee, brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a Registrar's dismissal order from May 3, 2013, which administratively dismissed the action for delay.

The court applied the four-pronged Reid test, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

While the court found the missed deadline was inadvertent, it determined that the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the full extent of the delay and did not bring the motion promptly.

Crucially, the court found significant non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, Boulos and Henriette Daher, due to the inordinate passage of time, the nature of their *non est factum* defence relying on faded memories, and their declining health, which rendered them unfit to participate in trial.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was therefore dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff against their properties.

The plaintiff, an electrical subcontractor, alleged that the defendant contractor breached the statutory trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act by misappropriating funds to maintain and improve the subject properties.

The defendants argued that a breach of trust claim cannot give rise to an interest in land and denied using trust funds for the properties.

The court found that a claim for a remedial constructive trust arising from a breach of statutory trust can support a CPL.

Due to the defendants' failure to provide a proper accounting of the trust funds, a triable issue remained regarding the plaintiff's interest in the lands.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed.

Following dismissal of the action for delay, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of fraud made against them and the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action.

The court rejected the argument that the action itself constituted an abuse of process merely because a prior action existed, noting the claims were not identical and the matter had not been decided on its merits.

However, the court found the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action was contumelious, inexcusable, and unexplained, which justified an elevated costs award.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the defendants despite the absence of a trial on the merits.

The court also noted that while a Rule 49 offer had been served, the award of substantial indemnity costs made it unnecessary to determine whether that offer independently justified enhanced costs.

The plaintiff was required to show cause at a status hearing why its action for fraudulent conveyance should not be dismissed for delay.

The defendants sought dismissal, arguing the plaintiff took no steps for extended periods.

The Master found that while a 12-month delay was unexplained, the plaintiff had been actively pursuing the action against another defendant.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, the Master declined to dismiss the action and ordered a timetable for next steps.

The appellant sought to be appointed as her mother's guardian and applied to rescind a Power of Attorney for personal care made in favour of her brother.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the mother had capacity, and also dismissed the appellant's motion for an adjournment to file further material and cross-examine an affiant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the application judge's discretionary refusal of the adjournment, as the appellant had sufficient time to serve responding material and provided no explanation for why an adjournment was required.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent mortgagee was not negligent in managing a property and did not let it fall into disrepair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge gave careful and cogent reasons for concluding the respondent complied with his obligations to reasonably maintain the property pending its sale.

The trial judge's costs award was also upheld.