Joseph Irving

The plaintiff moved to deliver a fresh, amended statement of claim.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing it would waste years of effort and costs already invested in discovery and trial preparation.

The court allowed the amendments, noting that barring incompensable prejudice, the rules require amendments to be allowed.

Two paragraphs related to preventing mortgage enforcement were withdrawn on consent as the mortgage had already been enforced.

Costs of the motion were left in the cause as between the plaintiff and the self-represented defendant, and no costs were awarded between the plaintiff and the mortgagee defendant.

The respondents brought a motion requesting the motion judge recuse himself on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on an exchange during a previous motion where the judge commented that he was 'thinking of making an order to wind up the whole operation' in response to respondents' counsel stating he was considering a motion to close part of the business.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the comments were intended to explore counsel's musings and remind him of the range of possible outcomes, and did not demonstrate bias or pre-determination of the issues.

The defendant in an action for damages arising from an allegedly improper PPSA registration moved to consolidate the action with her ongoing shareholder oppression proceedings against the plaintiff and others.

The defendant argued the PPSA registration was made to prevent a breach of a preservation order in the oppression proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proceedings arose from the same factual background and shared common issues of fact, particularly regarding the defendant's motivation, which was relevant to the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to have the defendant found in contempt of court for failing to comply with multiple court orders, including orders to provide an accounting and attend judgment debtor examinations.

The defendant admitted to eight counts of civil contempt, including egregiously lying to the court about his father's death to avoid a court appearance.

The court found the defendant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced him to a 76-day intermittent custodial sentence, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was also ordered to pay $50,000 in costs.

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against former directors of a religious corporation who continued to act as directors and authorized significant payments after a consent court order replaced them.

The court found the respondents knowingly acted contrary to the order by signing cheques and authorizing approximately $135,000 in corporate disbursements after they were no longer directors, including payments after an additional order expressly prohibiting removal of funds.

Applying the established three-part test for civil contempt, the court held the order was clear, the conduct deliberate, and the breach proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court declined to order repayment of the funds due to practical enforcement and litigation considerations but imposed penalties and costs.