24 total
Motion to set aside consent judgment for alleged fraud dismissed.
The defendants moved under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a consent judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud.
They alleged that the plaintiff lender had agreed to hold the consent judgment in escrow and not enforce it, and raised additional arguments concerning the validity of default interest under the Interest Act.
The court held that Rule 59.06 is limited to circumstances where fraud in obtaining the judgment is established and does not permit the court to revisit the correctness of the judgment itself.
The defendants failed to prove that any representation was made that the consent judgment would not be enforced, and the alleged oral arrangement was inconsistent with the written agreements and the parties’ conduct.
The motion was dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants.
Partial indemnity costs awarded after mixed success on Rule 21 motion.
Following a partially successful Rule 21 motion to strike pleadings, the moving defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The responding plaintiffs argued costs should be in the cause due to mixed success and that the amount sought was excessive.
The court applied the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although success was mixed, the defendants achieved significant success by striking entire causes of action.
The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting that the defendants were not entirely successful.
Court confirms agreed striking of additional claim paragraphs in franchise dispute.
The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim in a franchise dispute.
In an earlier endorsement, the court struck certain portions while permitting others to proceed.
This addendum clarified additional paragraphs that the parties had agreed should be struck prior to the motion argument but which were not listed in the original endorsement.
The struck portions related to unsupported claims against individual defendants, including negligence, breach of contract, statutory duties under franchise legislation, and claims for injunctive relief and lost opportunity damages.
The court confirmed that the listed portions of the Statement of Claim were struck in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
Motion to strike granted in part; breach of contract claims contradicting express franchise terms struck.
The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim in a franchise dispute.
The plaintiffs, franchisees of a Cora restaurant, alleged misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of the Arthur Wishart Act after the franchisor opened another location nearby.
The court struck the breach of contract and negligence claims without leave to amend, finding they contradicted the express terms of the franchise agreement which granted no exclusive territory.
The misrepresentation claims were struck with leave to amend for lack of particularity.
The claims under the Arthur Wishart Act and for injunctive relief were allowed to proceed.
