Heath Peter Leyrow Whiteley

The appellant, Pamela Bader, appealed a summary judgment order that found her liable to pay a mortgage debt to 1250140 Ontario Inc. The core issues were whether the action was barred by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act (RPLA) and whether Ms. Bader had acknowledged the debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the RPLA applied to the claim for debt based on a mortgage covenant, even after the property's sale, and that Ms. Bader's affidavit constituted a valid acknowledgment of the debt, thereby extending the limitation period.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion seeking to revive a 2004 fraudulent conveyance action against the Bankrupt and his brother, and to set aside a 2007 order and notice of discontinuance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Trustee had settled the action against the brother in 2007.

Furthermore, the court held that the fraudulent conveyance claims were res judicata, as they had been fully litigated and dismissed in a prior family court proceeding where the Trustee actively participated as an intervenor.

The court also refused to approve the Trustee's reports due to factual inaccuracies and declined to authorize criminal proceedings.

Finally, the court ordered the Trustee to pay partial indemnity costs personally, as it had pursued adversarial litigation without inspector authority and knowing the estate had no funds.

This decision concerns the costs award following a successful summary judgment motion where the defendants, Schembri et al., had a $30,500,000 claim against them struck in its entirety.

Schembri sought $499,933.06 in costs.

The plaintiffs, Way et al., opposed the quantum, arguing for a reduction.

The court found Schembri's costs reasonable, noting the complexity of the intertwined actions and the plaintiffs' extensive, unfocused responding material.

The court also drew an adverse inference from the plaintiffs' failure to provide their own cost outline.

The full amount of costs requested by Schembri was awarded.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a full, substantial, or partial indemnity basis following a motion to compel the defendants to comply with undertakings.

The defendants argued the motion was brought to delay discovery.

The court noted the defendants had the power to expedite discovery by complying with undertakings and court orders, which they failed to do.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $94,468.81.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' pleadings or, in the alternative, to compel answers to undertakings and for security for costs.

The action involved a $90 million real estate development dispute.

The court found that the individual defendant had repeatedly failed to answer hundreds of undertakings from his discovery and had breached multiple court orders, causing significant delay.

Although the plaintiffs withdrew their request to strike the pleadings, the court ordered the defendant to pay $100,000 into court as security for costs to enforce its processes against a wealthy party who abused the court system.

The plaintiffs sought damages for wrongful dismissal, unpaid commissions, and punitive damages arising from the termination of a sales and marketing role in condominium developments.

The court found that the plaintiff was an employee rather than an independent contractor, notwithstanding the use of corporate invoices for payment.

After being terminated without notice, the plaintiff was entitled to commissions on completed condominium sales, damages for five months’ reasonable notice, and punitive damages due to the defendant’s post‑termination conduct, including intimidation and a baseless counterclaim alleging theft of documents.

The court rejected the defence based on the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act because it was not pleaded and because the plaintiff acted as a full‑time employee.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant was substantially successful on an appeal regarding the court-ordered sale of properties.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court directed that the costs be paid by the respondent personally rather than by the Estate, and declined to make any costs order regarding the Receiver or a prior consent motion.

The parties were joint venturers in property development who had a falling out, leading to the appointment of a Receiver to sell properties in Waterloo, London, and Oshawa.

The motion judge approved the Receiver's amended sales process, which included a stalking horse offer from the respondent, despite finding that the respondent had engaged in tactical conduct to derail the original sales process.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred by disregarding the respondent's conduct when exercising her discretion, as the conduct undermined the integrity of the court-supervised sales process.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Waterloo property was ordered sold to the appellant in accordance with his original bid.

The appellant appealed an order declaring its registered lien against the respondent's equipment invalid.

The respondent had leased equipment to a related company of the appellant under an agreement that expressly prohibited the creation of any liens without prior written consent.

The appellant, knowing of this prohibition, performed work on the equipment and registered a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant knew of the prohibition, the respondent did not consent to the lien, and the contractual prohibition applied to all types of liens, including those under the Act.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's refusal to grant relief from forfeiture regarding a lease.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of equitable and discretionary power, concluding the order was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The Grand River Conservation Authority appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to seasonal cottage lot leases.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that the s. 3(a) exemption for seasonal accommodation only applies to commercial establishments like hotels or campgrounds, not to these cottage lots.

However, the Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to determine whether a prior mediated settlement between the parties, which purported to exclude the Act's application, was valid under s. 181(2) of the Act.

In a CCAA proceeding regarding Stelco Inc., the Informal Independent Converts' Committee appealed an order denying them a separate class of creditors.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or error in principle in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants lacked a different legal or practical interest from other unsecured creditors vis-à-vis the debtor.

The debtor filed an assignment in bankruptcy while owning a motor vehicle subject to an unperfected conditional sales contract held by the appellant.

The appellant filed a proof of claim for the balance owing, which the trustee disallowed as a secured claim but allowed as an unsecured claim.

The appellant appealed, arguing it was entitled to priority over the trustee for the first $5,000 of the vehicle's value under the motor vehicle exemption in s. 2.6 of the Execution Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the plain wording of s. 2.6 provides an exemption only for a motor vehicle not exceeding $5,000 in value, and does not exempt the first $5,000 of a vehicle worth more than that amount.

The appeal concerning Grove Packaging Inc. was dismissed on consent on a without costs basis.