Helen Richards

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action against a home builder.

The defendant objected to certain paragraphs in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit, arguing they contained evidence of settlement negotiations and should be struck.

At a case conference to determine the timing of the defendant's challenge, the court applied the hybrid approach to striking affidavits and held that the admissibility of the impugned paragraphs should be determined by the judge hearing the summary judgment motion, rather than in a pre-emptive motion.

This decision addresses costs arising from an application to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute over a new home purchase agreement.

The applicants, purchasers, sought an arbitrator after alleging the vendor (respondent) breached the agreement and they terminated it.

The respondent initially opposed arbitration but later agreed after the applicants' termination notice.

The court had previously ruled in favor of the applicants' choice of arbitrator but reserved on costs.

This decision awards costs to the respondent for the period prior to the applicants' termination notice, finding that the arbitration clause, which related to termination disputes, was not triggered until actual termination occurred.

The court found the applicants' interpretation of the arbitration agreement did not justify enhanced costs, and awarded a net amount of $7,500 in costs to the respondent.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a denied urgent Norwich motion brought by the plaintiffs.

The court found no urgency for the Norwich order and determined that the defendant was entitled to costs.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs argued for partial indemnity and payment in the cause, with a reduction for the defendant's alleged delay in retaining counsel and a cross-motion.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no reason to delay the costs award or discount the defendant's costs.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant $50,000 in all-inclusive costs forthwith on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich Order against David Shpilt, who was added as a defendant in an ongoing fraud action.

The plaintiffs had invested significant funds in a cannabis business, Sustainable Growth Strategic Capital Corp., which they alleged was fraudulent.

Shpilt was found to have drafted a forged contract used to induce investment and received over $110,000 of the plaintiffs' funds.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation against Shpilt, a serious risk of asset dissipation, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the Mareva injunction.

For the Norwich Order, the court determined there was a bona fide claim, a connection between financial institutions and the fraud, and that the order was the only practical source of information to trace funds.

Both the Mareva injunction and Norwich Order were granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for a Norwich order to compel disclosure of information related to alleged defamation and intrusion upon seclusion, stemming from internet postings and domain name purchases.

The court found no urgency, questioned the validity of the intrusion upon seclusion claim regarding dormant domain names, and noted the defamation claim was weak as the articles had been removed.

The motion was deemed a potential tactical move related to ongoing commercial litigation between the parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not justified for a Norwich order and was akin to a fishing expedition.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to add David Shpilt and Pamela Atkinson as defendants, amend their statement of claim, register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the Homewood Property, and validate service on Mr. Shpilt.

The court granted the motion with respect to adding Mr. Shpilt as a defendant, allowing the amendment of the statement of claim to include him, and validating service on him.

The balance of the motion, concerning Ms. Atkinson and the CPL, was adjourned due to insufficient service on Ms. Atkinson.

An interim order was issued to prevent the transfer or sale of the Homewood Property pending the adjourned hearing.

Following a successful motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order, the plaintiffs sought costs of $47,495.53 jointly and severally against the defendants.

The defendant Rosanna Boccia argued that costs against her should be in the cause, as she did not engage in the obstructionist tactics employed by her co-defendant son.

The court agreed that Rosanna played by the rules but noted she still lost the motion.

The court awarded total costs of $47,000, holding Rosanna jointly and severally liable for half ($23,500), while the co-defendants were held liable for the full amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich Order against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of $775,000 through a fake cannabis business investment scheme.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a serious risk of asset dissipation, granting the Mareva injunction to freeze the defendants' assets.

The court also granted a Norwich Order compelling third-party financial institutions to produce banking records to trace the misappropriated funds.

The self-represented plaintiff, a tenant of the defendant, brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the defendant's property to prevent its impending sale.

The plaintiff claimed an entitlement to a portion of the sale proceeds based on an alleged agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim for monetary damages did not constitute a proprietary interest in the land, which is a prerequisite for a CPL.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,606.64 due to the plaintiff's strategic attempt to thwart the sale.