John De Vellis

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt of court for violating freezing orders issued following a trial that found the defendant liable for a $7.3 million fraud.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual knowledge of the clear and unequivocal orders, yet intentionally failed to disclose his worldwide assets and actively dissipated hundreds of thousands of dollars to offshore accounts and third parties.

The defendant was found guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to 50 days of incarceration, with a subsequent hearing scheduled to determine if he could purge his contempt and mitigate his final sentence.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, challenged the corporation's decision to enter into a new bulk services agreement for television and internet.

They argued the corporation lacked jurisdiction to charge the costs as common expenses without an opt-out, failed to comply with notice and approval requirements under s. 97 of the Condominium Act, and acted oppressively by ignoring a requisition for an owners' meeting.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation had jurisdiction under its declaration and by-laws, the incremental cost of the new internet service did not trigger the s. 97 thresholds, and the applicants failed to prove oppressive conduct.

The Garcia Defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Paraguayan pension fund, under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

The plaintiff, ordinarily resident outside Ontario, argued it had sufficient assets in Ontario, that the defendants delayed the motion, that the defendants' conduct increased costs, and that it had a meritorious case.

The court found the plaintiff's alleged Ontario assets were not unrestricted, and the defendants' explanation for delay was unreasonable.

Considering the plaintiff's substantial assets in Paraguay, the enforceability of a judgment there, the contractual relationship between parties, the defendants' counterclaim, and the defendants' vexatious conduct and unreasonable delay, the court dismissed the motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 49.09 seeking an order declaring that a previous motion was settled according to a draft order.

The court found that no binding settlement agreement had been reached.

Although the parties had exchanged drafts, they had also agreed that the document needed to be "cleaned up" for final review and client sign-off.

A material change was inadvertently made by the plaintiff's counsel in the "cleaned up" draft, which the defendants' client subsequently rejected.

The court emphasized that a binding agreement requires mutual intention on all essential terms and that, in this case, the final form of the draft order had not been settled, and client consent was consistently required.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed.

During a Commercial List case management conference in a complex multi‑party securities and investment dispute, the court issued procedural directions governing ongoing litigation steps.

The court addressed the potential settlement motion involving certain defendants, confirmed the status of examinations for discovery, and ordered timelines for answering undertakings.

The judge provided structured options for handling refusals motions and warned that costs may be assessed per refusal to discourage unnecessary motions.

Additional directions were given regarding the timing of expert reports, a possible future summary judgment motion, and scheduling of the next case management conference.

The plaintiffs, employees of eHealth Ontario, brought a motion to certify a class action against eHealth for breach of contract and against Ontario for inducing breach of contract, relating to the non-payment of performance awards and merit increases.

The plaintiffs also moved to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for the 2011/2012 performance awards.

The court granted the motion to amend and certified the action as a class proceeding against eHealth, finding that the breach of contract claims were not plainly and obviously doomed to fail.

However, the court refused to certify the claim against Ontario for inducing breach of contract, finding it legally untenable.

Condominium unit owners sought removal of a certificate of lien and correction of a status certificate after the condominium corporation claimed additional legal costs under s.134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998 following a compliance order.

The corporation asserted it could add substantial additional legal fees as common expenses beyond the court-ordered costs.

The court held that s.134(5) permits recovery only of reasonable legal costs incurred in obtaining the compliance order, not costs incurred afterwards in attempting to enforce or escalate the dispute.

Finding the corporation’s claimed $41,599.45 unreasonable for a simple application largely resolved by consent, the court assessed the recoverable costs at $6,500 inclusive of prior awards.

The lien was ordered vacated and the corporation ordered to pay costs of the motion.