James H. Chow

This endorsement addresses procedural matters in an appeal from a partial summary judgment.

The respondent argued the order under appeal was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The court set a schedule for submissions on whether the order is interlocutory or final, and for an expedited appeal hearing.

It noted that a motion to stay was likely moot as the tenant had already been evicted, preferring to expedite the appeal.

The judge also raised a potential jurisdictional concern regarding the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction over the appeal.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought a motion for default judgment to rectify title to a condominium property.

The deceased plaintiff had alleged that the defendants fraudulently transferred the property into joint tenancy, registered a forged power of attorney, and obtained a mortgage without his knowledge or consent.

The court found the instruments were fraudulent under the Land Titles Act and ordered them deleted from title.

The court also awarded $10,000 in punitive damages against the fraudulent actor and substantial indemnity costs.

The Owners (Jeffrey and Rachel Nagashima) brought a motion under s. 44(2) of the Construction Act to vacate Cancore Production Ltd.'s construction lien against their property by posting reduced security, specifically the basic statutory holdback of $38,000.

Cancore opposed any reduction.

The court dismissed the Owners' motion, finding they failed to convincingly demonstrate that their maximum liability to Cancore would be less than the full lien amount.

The Master found triable issues regarding the prime contract price, the extent of agreed extras, and the validity of claimed set-offs for incomplete and deficient work, concluding that the Owners had not met their evidentiary onus to justify a reduction in security.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment for a claim arising from an aborted home sale.

The Defendant failed to comply with a court-ordered timetable for motion materials, submitting key documents, including an appraisal report and an admission of liability, the night before the scheduled hearing.

This non-compliance necessitated an adjournment.

The Plaintiff requested strict terms, including security for the claim and costs, citing concerns about asset disposition.

The court granted the adjournment but declined to order security for the claim or costs, instead imposing an injunction preventing the Defendant from disposing of or encumbering assets or incurring new debt, except for ordinary living expenses.

The Defendant was also ordered to pay $4,500 in costs for the adjournment and wasted preparation.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, citing the plaintiffs' two years of inaction and failure to respond to correspondence.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants were in default for not delivering affidavits of documents and offered an explanation for their delay.

The court found the defendants were not in default due to rule amendments and rejected the plaintiffs' explanation as incredible.

However, the court declined to dismiss the action, noting that "contumelious" delay typically requires serial violations of court orders, which was not present.

The motions were dismissed without prejudice, but the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $11,000 in costs to the defendants and to deliver their affidavit of documents within 30 days, with defendants to follow 30 days thereafter.

This decision quantifies the costs awarded to the plaintiff following a contempt sentencing against certain defendants (Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag).

The plaintiff sought full indemnification for legal fees, counsel fees, and disbursements totaling over $38,000 plus HST.

The contemnors argued the fees were excessive.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs fair, reasonable, and proportionate, emphasizing the contemnors' prior misconduct and the high burden of proof in contempt proceedings.

The court ordered the contemnors to pay the plaintiff $43,187.08 in all-inclusive costs.

The Superior Court of Justice determined the appropriate sentence for Tess Cusipag, Balita Newspaper, and Balita Media Inc. for criminal contempt of court.

The defendants had previously been found to have libeled the plaintiff and violated an injunction prohibiting the repetition of false allegations.

Despite a prior award of punitive damages and a finding of contempt, the defendants remained unrepentant and unwilling to purge their contempt.

The court emphasized the need to compel obedience to court orders and uphold the rule of law.

Tess Cusipag was sentenced to 21 days in a provincial reformatory, and Balita Newspaper and Balita Media Inc. were each fined $5,000, with joint and several liability for the plaintiff's costs.

This is an appeal from a damages award in a defamation action.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's assessment of both compensatory and punitive damages awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge properly applied legal principles in quantifying damages.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that the award was out of line with other defamation cases involving political figures, noting that the trial judge found this was a personal matter, not a political case.

The appellants' conduct—repeating false statements with knowledge of their falsity and intent to continue—warranted substantial punitive damages for deterrence purposes.

The plaintiff moved for an order finding the Media Defendants (Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag) in criminal contempt of a permanent injunction issued by Lederman J. on July 13, 2016.

The injunction prohibited the Media Defendants from publishing statements suggesting the plaintiff committed criminal fraud or was a pathological liar.

The court found that the Media Defendants intentionally re-published and encouraged others to disseminate the same defamatory allegations, asserting their truth and attributing their prior loss to a conspiracy, despite knowing the injunction.

The court concluded that the defendants' conduct constituted criminal contempt due to its open, continuous, and flagrant violation of a court order, transcending a private dispute and affronting the administration of justice.

Vendors appealed a summary judgment decision ordering specific performance of a residential real estate purchase agreement.

The vendors had refused to close the transaction and claimed they never agreed to sell the property.

The motion judge found the vendors not credible based on inconsistent testimony and evidence from their own real estate agent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's credibility findings or her discretionary award of specific performance.

The court also rejected the vendors' arguments regarding delay, uniqueness of the property, and procedural objections.

The respondents' cross-appeal for additional damages was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of quantifiable losses.

The corporate plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to post $62,000 as security for costs in a negligence and breach of fiduciary duty action against solicitors involved in a business sale transaction.

The applicant argued that the motions judge erred in finding the corporation was not impecunious, failed to assess the merits of the claim, and did not adequately address delay in bringing the security motion.

The court held that modern jurisprudence permits consideration of a corporation’s ability to obtain funding from shareholders or creditors when assessing impecuniosity and found no conflicting authority warranting appellate clarification.

It further held that the motions judge properly exercised discretion by considering fairness to the defendants and the evidentiary record.

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and the issues lacked broader importance.