Jimmie Z. Chen

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for over $500,000, alleging they made various loans and investments to the defendants over a decade while their daughter lived with the defendants as a homestay student.

The defendants argued the funds were payments for the daughter's room, board, tuition, and other expenses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the alleged loans and investments.

Furthermore, the court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the alleged debts.

At a case conference regarding the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the defendants indicated an intention to challenge the validity of service in Hong Kong under the Hague Convention.

The defendants' counsel appeared on a limited scope retainer solely to contest service.

The court held that it would be an abuse of process to allow the defendants to delay adjudication by retaining counsel incrementally.

The court scheduled the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and directed that any motions by the defendants to set aside service or lift the noting in default be heard at the same time.

Following a successful application by the condominium corporation for oppression and compliance orders, the applicant sought $155,000 in full indemnity costs.

The respondent unit owner's extreme demands for disability accommodation and unreasonable litigation conduct significantly increased the costs of the proceeding.

The court found that while the respondent's conduct was egregious, an elevated scale of costs was not warranted as the applicant did not beat its settlement offers.

The court awarded $75,000 in partial indemnity costs, noting the applicant's right to recover further costs under section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.