Haiyan Zhang

The court considered whether the applicant's motion for urgent parenting relief should be heard before a case conference, as required by the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought immediate primary care of the child, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a police enforcement clause.

The court reviewed the parties' positions, the applicable legal tests for urgency, and the conduct of counsel.

The court found that the test for urgency was not met, dismissed the urgent motion, and awarded costs against the applicant.

This trial addressed the beneficial ownership of two real estate properties and a vehicle in a family law context.

The applicant spouse claimed a beneficial interest, asserting the assets were gifts from the respondent spouse and his parents.

The respondents contended that the assets were held in trust for the parents, who provided all funds, and that title was placed in the names of the spouses for practical reasons related to immigration and insurance, without any intent to gift.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that the applicant failed to rebut this presumption.

The court concluded that the respondent parents were the sole beneficial owners of all three assets.

The applicant sought a declaration that $70,500 she advanced to the deceased was a loan payable by his estate, plus interest.

The estate disputed the claim, arguing insufficient corroboration under s. 13 of Ontario's Evidence Act due to lack of written documentation.

The court found sufficient corroboration through affidavit evidence from the deceased's brother and cousin, combined with financial records, concluding that the funds were indeed a loan.

The estate trustee was ordered to repay the loan with interest.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a franchise dispute action from Toronto to Ottawa.

The court found the motion premature because the defendants had already been noted in default in Toronto for failing to file defences.

The court adjourned the transfer motion sine die, directing the defendants to first bring a motion in Toronto to set aside the noting of default under Rule 19.03, or obtain the plaintiff's consent to file defences.

The defendant, Jameson Bank, successfully moved for summary judgment and opposed the plaintiff's motion to amend the statement of claim and add new defendants.

Jameson Bank sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to its offer to settle date (September 11, 2014) and substantial indemnity thereafter, totaling $132,790.43.

The plaintiff, Yunsheng Du, argued for limited costs of $10,000, citing his partial success on the amendment motion and the defendant's unreasonable conduct and excessive rates.

The court found the plaintiff's litigation approach disproportionate and unnecessarily complicated, noting serious but unfounded allegations.

While the plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable, it was not egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $95,495.91, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding the claimed rates and time spent reasonable given the complexity caused by the plaintiff's actions and counsel's experience.

The plaintiff, Yunsheng Du, sought damages from Jameson Bank after unauthorized wire transfers occurred due to his email account being hacked.

Jameson Bank moved for summary judgment, arguing it acted in accordance with the account agreement, which placed responsibility for email security on Du and contained an exclusion of liability clause for anything less than gross negligence or wilful misconduct.

Du also sought to amend his claim to add new causes of action and parties.

The court dismissed Du's proposed amendments for oppression remedy and breach of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, finding them untenable.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Jameson Bank, concluding that the contractual terms barred Du's claims for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, and conversion, as Du failed to secure his email account and Jameson Bank had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the instructions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence and dismiss the counterclaim of the subject defendants due to their failure to pay prior costs awards and answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court declined to strike the pleadings immediately, opting instead to give the defendants one final opportunity to comply.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings until the defendants pay the outstanding costs and answer the undertakings by specified deadlines, failing which their pleadings will be struck without further notice.

The court fixed the "costs thrown away" for the plaintiffs in the sum of $30,000, inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T., payable by the defendants jointly and severally.

These costs were incurred by the plaintiffs due to the defendants' prolonged denial of successor corporation status, which necessitated the plaintiffs' efforts to establish CSL's responsibility for CPSL's liabilities.

The court had previously granted the defendants' motion to set aside pleadings against CPSL on the condition that the plaintiffs be paid these costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to examine two non-party witnesses and to amend the claim to remove one of the plaintiffs in his personal capacity.

The court dismissed the request to examine the non-parties, finding it premature as the plaintiffs had not yet exhausted the discovery process through a refusals motion.

The court granted the request to remove the individual plaintiff on terms, including that he pay $2,000 in costs to one of the defendants and remain liable for costs awarded against the unincorporated plaintiffs.