James R.G. Cook

The appellant, Leslie Arthur Swan, appealed the dismissal of his claim for conspiracy and defamation against several respondents, including a condominium corporation, its manager, and legal counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it was a collateral attack on earlier proceedings and statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision, finding no error and dismissing the appeal with costs to the respondents.

The Bank of Montreal (BMO) sued corporate and individual defendants for $277,827.96, representing funds mistakenly deposited into the defendants' accounts and subsequently withdrawn.

The defendants failed to participate in the lawsuit after delivering a statement of defence.

The court found the defendants liable on the grounds of restitution for money paid under mistake of fact, and alternatively, conversion and unjust enrichment, ordering repayment of the funds, costs, and interest.

The appellant, Donavan Locke, appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his second and third actions (alleging deceit and conspiracy against his former common-law partner and her lawyers regarding a property transfer) and dismissing his own motions (including a constitutional question and criminal contempt).

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's decision, affirming that summary judgment was appropriate due to the appellant's lack of evidence and damages.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motions, noting the constitutional question was "ill conceived" and there was no basis for criminal contempt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to each respondent.

The plaintiff, an experienced private lender, brought an action against a law clerk and two lawyers for negligence, fraud, and conspiracy arising from defaulted mortgage investments.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked evidentiary support.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting her claims well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on the standard of care for the professional negligence claims and offered no evidence to support the allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

The plaintiff corporation, acting without counsel, sued multiple defendants for fraud, breach of contract, and interference with contractual relations after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim and for security for costs.

The court set aside a noting in default against one defendant, finding the plaintiff had improperly requisitioned it.

The court struck the majority of the claims without leave to amend, finding they were frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The breach of contract claim against the property owners was struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $150,000 in security for costs before taking any further steps.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent father and the appellant's trial counsel, payable by the appellant mother.

As the parties could not agree on the amounts, the court reviewed submissions and fixed the respondent father's costs at $22,500 and the appellant's trial counsel's costs at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court rejected the appellant mother's arguments for no costs or nominal costs, finding no circumstances to justify such an award, and noted that her offer to settle on different terms was irrelevant to the costs determination.

The appellant, 9383859 Canada Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its actions for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The respondents, Kubeskaran Navaratnam, Ronald Lachmansingh, and Marilyn Reiter Nemetz, brought motions to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with a security for costs order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motions, dismissing the appeal.

The court found that the appellant had not provided compelling reasons for its non-compliance and that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal, given the appellant's lack of assets and the manifest weakness of the underlying appeal.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful Rule 21 motion brought by the defendants.

The court applied the principles of costs awards, including the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs.

The defendants were wholly successful on the underlying motion, and their requested costs were found to be proportionate and within the parties' expectations.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity amounts to each successful defendant, payable by the plaintiff.

The defendant lawyers, Kubeskran Navaratnam, Marilyn Reiter-Nemetz, and Ronald Lachmansingh, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff, 9383859 Canada Ltd., alleged negligence and false statements against the lawyers who represented adverse parties in a failed real estate transaction and subsequent litigation.

The court found that lawyers generally owe no duty of care to opposing parties, especially when the opposing party is represented by their own counsel.

The court also held that statements made in pleadings are protected by absolute immunity and that the claims were statute-barred.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the claims against the defendant lawyers were struck without leave to amend, as they were deemed radically defective, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid commission held in trust.

The defendant vendor claimed a set-off for damages resulting from the plaintiff's agent's alleged negligence regarding the property's acreage, and argued there was an oral collateral agreement reducing the commission.

Applying the Hryniak framework and appellate jurisprudence on partial summary judgment, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial, including credibility issues and the existence of a collateral agreement.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.