Jake Newton

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion to set aside a noting in default on the defendants' counterclaim in a mortgage enforcement action.

The plaintiff's previous counsel failed to file a defence to the counterclaim, and the plaintiff was noted in default 22 days after the pleading was served.

The court applied the factors for setting aside a noting in default, finding that while there was an unexplained 12-month delay, the plaintiff would suffer significant prejudice if the default stood, whereas the defendants would suffer no prejudice.

The court concluded there were no extreme circumstances requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate a meritorious defence, and granted the motion to set aside the noting in default.

Following a trial where the plaintiff succeeded in claims of oppression and fraud against two defendants, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $385,353.72 against the two main defendants, finding their conduct—including a fraudulent sham purchase and willful refusal to comply with a court order—to be reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous.

A corporate co-defendant was held jointly and severally liable for 35% of those costs due to the plaintiff's success on a contract rescission claim.

A dispute arising from a failed gas station development venture.

The plaintiff invested $350,000 for a 50% interest in a company owning a property in Thorndale, Ontario, with the defendant agreeing to complete development obligations in exchange for a 50% interest for $50.

The relationship deteriorated due to lack of communication and delays.

The defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation and commenced litigation.

The property was eventually returned to the original company.

The court found the defendants liable for oppression and fraud, ordered a shotgun buy-sell arrangement based on independent appraisal, and awarded damages at large.

This costs endorsement follows the successful motion by Batavia Developments Inc. to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs, relying on a contractual provision and the conduct of the defendant, Mr. Mohsini.

The court found no reason to depart from the contractual term and awarded the full amount sought.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a townhouse.

The defendants failed to make required payments, and the plaintiffs purported to terminate the APS but did not communicate this clearly.

The plaintiffs later resold the property, and the defendants claimed breach and sought return of their deposits.

The court found that the APS was not properly terminated by the plaintiffs, and that by reselling the property, the plaintiffs themselves breached the APS.

The defendants were entitled to the return of their deposits with interest.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement reached on the eve of trial regarding an estate dispute over a property.

The plaintiffs argued there was no binding agreement as certain terms were not finalized, and disputed the calculation of 'net proceeds of sale', specifically regarding capital gains tax and sale expenses.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a binding agreement and enforced it, holding that the objective interpretation of the agreement required the deduction of capital gains tax and shared expenses to determine the net proceeds.