Jacky Cheung

Following a failed motion by the defendants to have their trial costs paid by various litigation loan providers, the loan providers sought their costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs to the loan providers, finding that the defendants' motion raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of a costs award against a litigation loan provider and the requirement for court approval of litigation loan agreements.

Given the novelty of the issue, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

The moving parties (defendants) sought an order to approve a loan and dispense with the consent of the responding parties (plaintiffs) for the loan and future financing.

The moving parties argued that the responding parties' refusal to consent was oppressive and intended to leverage a buyout.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties had not made a claim for oppression and that the court could not use its inherent jurisdiction to rewrite a commercial agreement negotiated at arm's length by sophisticated parties.

Despite the responding parties' success, the court declined to award costs due to their inequitable conduct.

The defendants, a charitable organization and a church, brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff alleged various wrongs, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and reprisal, arising from his involvement with the defendants and his subsequent removal from his alleged position as a board member.

Applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on voluntary religious organizations, the court found it lacked jurisdiction over most of the claims, as they did not involve the vindication of legal rights.

The claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment were struck with leave to amend, as they were legally tenable but lacked sufficient particulars.

The remaining claims were struck without leave to amend as frivolous or disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to claim a $100,000 deposit after the defendant purchasers failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants had submitted an unconditional offer but failed to close due to financing issues, and subsequently attempted to cloud the title to prevent resale.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the deposit was a true deposit subject to forfeiture.

The court rejected the defendants' claim for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit amount proportionate and no unconscionability in the plaintiffs retaining it.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.