G. Sidlofsky

The plaintiff, CIBC, brought a motion for partial summary judgment on a debt claim of $856,602.80 arising from margin calls on an online trading account, and to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants argued they had placed stop loss orders that CIBC failed to execute.

CIBC also had a separate claim for fraudulent conveyance against the defendants, which was not part of the summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the stop loss orders and a real risk of inconsistent findings of fact if the debt claim was severed from the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim arising from the sale of a gas station business.

The court found the claim was irregular as it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against one defendant, lacked required particulars for allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and created a multiplicity of proceedings by raising issues that should have been addressed in an existing parallel action between the parties.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

The plaintiff tenant entered into a 10-year commercial lease for a café in a new condominium development.

The tenant later abandoned the premises and sued the defendant landlord for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the landlord falsely represented the occupancy dates of surrounding buildings and the availability of convenient, free customer parking.

The court found the landlord negligently misrepresented the parking situation by failing to disclose that a shared facilities committee and condominium concierges would control access, creating significant barriers for retail customers.

The court held that the entire agreement clause in the lease did not preclude the tort claim because it did not address free customer parking.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for operating losses and build-out costs, and the landlord's counterclaim for breach of lease was dismissed.

The plaintiff intends to bring a motion to order the sale of the subject property.

The defendants do not necessarily object to the sale, but there is no agreement on the terms.

The court established a timetable for the motion materials and scheduled a case conference to explore resolving the contested issues before the motion hearing.

The plaintiff and defendants were 50 percent owners of a corporation whose sole asset was a property intended for gas station development.

Following a breakdown in their relationship, the defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's consent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an oppression remedy to remove the defendants from management, while the defendants sought to wind up the corporation.

The court dismissed both requests, finding no oppressive conduct and concluding that a winding up was not just and equitable at this stage.

The court granted a motion to rescind the sale of the property and ordered the return of the purchase funds held in court, less outstanding costs owed to the plaintiff.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs following a successful application for declaratory relief regarding a commercial lease renewal.

The applicant argued that the respondents' unconscionable conduct, which grounded a finding of proprietary estoppel, and a settlement offer justified an elevated costs scale.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted, as there was no litigation misconduct and the settlement offer was delivered too late for meaningful consideration.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale and fixed at $22,500.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a declaration that her lease was renewed for a further five-year term, despite failing to provide written notice as required by the lease.

The tenant argued that the landlord's principals had orally assured her that the lease would be renewed without further action on her part, leading her to rely on these assurances to her detriment.

The court found that the elements of proprietary estoppel were met, as the landlord had encouraged the tenant's mistaken belief to take unconscionable advantage and regain possession of the premises.

The application was granted, and the lease was declared renewed.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a 2002 order that stayed the plaintiffs' first action and awarded costs to the defendants.

The costs submissions were misplaced and only brought to the court's attention years later by a Master.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court found the amounts claimed by the defendants to be excessive.

The court fixed costs at $6,800 for one defendant and $2,500 for the remaining defendants, payable by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion to add two brothers of the defendant to an action for unpaid legal fees.

The firm sought to bind the brothers, as contingent beneficiaries of their mother's estate, to a claim for fees to be paid from the estate upon her death.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed pleading problematic, the brothers' status as beneficiaries uncertain until the mother's death, and noting the firm failed to utilize the appropriate remedy under section 34 of the Solicitors Act.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to satisfy prior costs orders totaling more than $45,000 and for delay in prosecuting the action.

The plaintiff, through her granddaughter acting under an alleged power of attorney, asserted medical incapacity and financial hardship as reasons for non‑payment and delay.

The court found the evidence supporting impecuniosity and incapacity weak, contradictory, and largely unsupported, noting property transfers to family members and a lengthy history of delay and procedural default.

While recognizing that striking a claim is a drastic remedy, the court held the plaintiff had failed to justify her non‑compliance and lack of progress.

The court granted the plaintiff a final opportunity to pay the outstanding costs and comply with discovery obligations, failing which the defendant could seek dismissal.

In a case‑managed Commercial List proceeding, the successful parties sought full indemnity costs following success on a motion to compel production of documents and to resist a motion for bifurcation.

The court emphasized that case management aims to ensure timely, fair, and cost‑effective resolution of civil disputes and that parties are expected to resolve procedural disputes informally where possible.

The court held that litigation conduct undermining case‑management objectives—such as unreasonable resistance to documentary production or attempts to derail an agreed timetable—may justify elevated cost sanctions even absent traditional “reprehensible” conduct.

Applying Rule 57 factors and proportionality principles, the court found the requested costs reasonable.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded.

In complex commercial litigation involving a Mareva injunction motion, counsel attended the court without following the Commercial List’s procedure for requesting an urgent appointment.

The court emphasized that counsel must contact the Commercial List Office before appearing urgently before a judge and may not bypass the process by attending unannounced in an attempt to vary a prior order.

Although the parties agreed to adjourn the Mareva motion and vary certain procedural timelines, the court criticized the improper attendance and ruled that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to claim costs for the unnecessary appearances.

The court granted the adjournment on consent with modifications and provided further scheduling directions for cross-examinations and the motion return.

The interim injunction remained in effect pending the rescheduled hearing.

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff’s lawyer of record on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest.

The defendant had previously consulted another lawyer who worked in association with the plaintiff’s lawyer at the same office group regarding the same employment dispute.

The court applied the principles from MacDonald Estate v. Martin concerning removal of counsel and protection of confidential information.

It held that the presumption that lawyers share confidential information applies within law firms but does not automatically apply to lawyers who merely work in association with separate practices.

Because the lawyers had separate practices and there was no evidence that confidential information had been shared with the lawyer of record, the motion to remove counsel was dismissed.