Unlock 5 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.
Appeared as counsel in 13 cases (2010–2020)
13 total
Summary judgment in mortgage action dismissed due to failure to put forward sufficient evidence.
The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure mortgage action, seeking possession and outstanding debt.
The motion was supported by an affidavit from a mortgage broker rather than the plaintiff himself, and lacked proper accounting of payments the defendants assert were made.
The Associate Justice found the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary burden to establish there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, and dismissed the summary judgment motion.
Motion to examine non-party lawyer dismissed; no exceptional circumstances to pierce solicitor-client privilege.
The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.10 for leave to examine a non-party lawyer who acted on the purchase of the disputed property.
The plaintiffs sought to pierce solicitor-client privilege to obtain evidence regarding the deceased's intentions when purchasing the property.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had not met the test under Rule 31.10(2)(a) because one of the plaintiffs was a party to the joint retainer and already had access to the information, and no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the disclosure of privileged communications to the non-client plaintiff.
Plaintiff ordered to answer most outstanding discovery undertakings and refusals in construction lien action.
The defendant in a construction lien action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery.
The plaintiff argued the defendant required leave under the former Construction Lien Act to bring the motion.
The court held that leave was implicitly granted by the discovery plan and was necessary to expedite the resolution of the dispute.
Applying the principles of proportionality and relevance, the court ordered the plaintiff to answer the majority of the outstanding questions, noting that undertakings must be honoured once given.
The court declined to order answers to questions regarding document authenticity and the plaintiff's opinion on a report prepared by the defendant's consultant.
Motion to set aside default judgment dismissed due to unexplained delay and lack of arguable defence.
The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the defendant on a claim for a personal guarantee of a corporate loan.
The defendant moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing he was only a minority shareholder and had received assurances he would not be personally liable.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to adequately explain his delay in defending the action and moving to set aside the judgment.
Furthermore, the court held the proposed defence lacked an air of reality given the clear, unconditional terms of the signed guarantee.
Motion to compel answer on Rule 39.03 examination dismissed as question was hypothetical and irrelevant.
The defendant brought a motion to compel a representative of a non-party to answer a refused question during an examination under Rule 39.03.
The examination was in relation to the plaintiff's pending motion for an extension of time to file a statement of claim.
The refused question asked whether the non-party would indemnify the defendant if the plaintiff's motion succeeded.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the question was hypothetical, sought a legal conclusion beyond the witness's expertise, and was irrelevant to the pending motion.
Motion to compel document production granted in part; cross-motion for undertakings dismissed as res judicata.
The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to produce documents previously ordered by RSJ Sweeny, which were necessary for the plaintiff's expert to prepare a responding report on damages in a business partnership dispute.
The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings and produce certain lease documents.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion in part, ordering the production of most requested corporate and financial documents, as well as the defendant Greg's income tax returns, finding them relevant and within the scope of the prior order.
The defendants' cross-motion was dismissed, as the request regarding undertakings was res judicata and there was insufficient evidence to order production of the lease documents.
Time for service of amended claim extended; insurer's prejudice allegations were largely self-created.
The plaintiff moved to validate service of an amended statement of claim and to extend the time for its service.
The amended claim substituted the originally named defendant with a newly identified driver, discovered at examinations for discovery.
The amended claim was not served on the new defendant until more than twenty-seven months after the amending order was issued.
The court granted the insurer standing as a friend of the court under Rule 13.02.
The motion to validate service was dismissed as personal service required no validation.
The motion to extend time was granted on the basis that the prejudice alleged by the insurer was largely self-created by its own failure to take available steps, and no direct evidence of actual prejudice from the delay itself was established.
The court declined to dismiss the action for delay, finding the conduct, while serious, did not reach the inordinate and inexcusable level required.
The improperly filed trial record — accompanied by a false solicitor's certificate — was set aside pursuant to Rules 1.04(1) and (2).
Bankruptcy discharge refused; debtor's repeated non-disclosure and non-cooperation disqualifying.
The bankrupt, an undischarged chiropractor, applied for a discharge from bankruptcy after making an assignment in 2019.
The trustee, CRA, and the Office of the Superintendent in Bankruptcy opposed the discharge on multiple grounds under s. 173(1) of the BIA, citing repeated failures to cooperate, non-disclosure of bank accounts, credit cards, corporate interests, post-bankruptcy equipment purchases, gambling activity, and inability to verify surplus income obligations.
The court found the grounds under ss. 173(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (j), (k), (m), and (o) proven, rejected the bankrupt's credibility on key points, and concluded that the bankrupt was not an honest but unfortunate debtor.
The discharge was refused, with leave to re-apply in one year upon full cooperation and disclosure to the trustee.
Leave granted for non-lawyer corporate representation; defendants' cross-motion dismissed.
On competing civil motions in a mortgage enforcement action, the court addressed whether a retired lawyer and beneficiary could represent a corporate trustee plaintiff under rr. 15.01 and 2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court granted relief on consent to amend the corporate defendant name, validate service, and direct that this action and a related action be tried together or consecutively as directed by the trial judge.
Applying discretionary access-to-justice principles and considering the trustee's bare trustee role, beneficiary alignment, inability to fund counsel, and litigation competence of the proposed representative, the court dispensed with strict compliance and granted leave for non-lawyer representation.
The defendants' cross-motion relief, including dismissal requests, conditions, security for costs, and adjournment for further service steps, was dismissed.
Motion to compel privileged statements dismissed; moving party failed to show no reasonable alternative.
The defendant insurer, Pembridge, moved to compel the production of transcribed statements given by a co-defendant and a non-party to their insurer following a fatal motor vehicle collision.
Pembridge argued that the co-defendant's poor memory at discovery overcame litigation privilege.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that Pembridge failed to establish that there was no reasonable alternative form of evidence, as it had not questioned the co-defendant at discovery or attempted to examine the non-party.
The court also noted that summaries of the statements had already been provided.
Substantial indemnity costs awarded to plaintiffs after discontinuance due to self-represented defendant's baseless allegations and inflammatory conduct.
The plaintiffs commenced an action for the repayment of loans totaling $193,500.
After obtaining a partial judgment for $170,000, which the defendant eventually paid to avoid a sheriff's sale of his property, the plaintiffs moved to discontinue the balance of the action and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The self-represented defendant opposed the costs request, making baseless allegations of misconduct against the plaintiffs' counsel.
The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings to be evasive, inflammatory, and responsible for unnecessary delays and costs.
The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of the proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $32,000.
Plaintiff's discovery motion dismissed and defendants' motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals granted.
The self-represented plaintiff and the defendants brought competing motions regarding the plaintiff's examination for discovery in a professional negligence action against her former real estate lawyers.
The plaintiff sought orders declaring her undertakings satisfied and noting the defendants in default, while the defendants moved to compel answers to undertakings and refusals.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion as being without merit and granted the defendants' motion, ordering the plaintiff to make best efforts to obtain and produce relevant documents, including mortgage files, appraisals, and family law records, and to re-attend for further examination.
The plaintiff was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs.
Conditional bankruptcy discharge granted where assignment was made to defeat a single large default judgment.
The bankrupt applied for a discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by his primary creditor.
The opposing creditor held a default judgment against the bankrupt for breach of contract, representing nearly 80% of the proven claims.
The court found that the bankrupt made the assignment in bankruptcy specifically to defeat the opposing creditor's judgment.
Applying the principles for bankruptcy discharge, the court refused an absolute discharge and instead granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $10,000 and undertake not to incur unsecured debt for five years.
