J. Rosenstein

The defendant brought a motion for answers to refusals and for further security for costs.

The refusals issue was resolved on consent.

On the issue of security for costs, it was undisputed that the plaintiff ordinarily resides in Vietnam.

The court found that the merits of the case were neutral due to credibility issues that could not be resolved on a motion.

As the plaintiff did not allege impecuniosity or prejudice, the court ordered the plaintiff to post further security for costs in the amount of $41,835.82.

The applicant bank sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the respondent debtor, alleging the debtor committed an event of default by providing falsified financial statements from the vendor of a gas station.

The respondents requested an adjournment to cross-examine the bank's affiant, arguing the evidence of the falsified statements was double hearsay.

The court adjourned the application to a date to be scheduled, on the conditions that the debtor remain current on all loan payments and provide the bank with full visibility into its financial and operational information.

The defendant brought a motion to quash two summonses to witness issued by the plaintiffs, which sought to examine two of the defendant's lawyers on pending interlocutory motions regarding the sale of jointly owned property.

The court quashed the summonses on three grounds: failure to comply with service requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to demonstrate that the lawyers' evidence was relevant and necessary, and abuse of process.

The court found the summonses were issued for ulterior purposes, including gathering evidence for a separate action against the lawyers and attempting to create a conflict of interest to preclude them from acting as counsel.

The plaintiff intends to bring a motion to order the sale of the subject property.

The defendants do not necessarily object to the sale, but there is no agreement on the terms.

The court established a timetable for the motion materials and scheduled a case conference to explore resolving the contested issues before the motion hearing.

The plaintiff and defendants were 50 percent owners of a corporation whose sole asset was a property intended for gas station development.

Following a breakdown in their relationship, the defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's consent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an oppression remedy to remove the defendants from management, while the defendants sought to wind up the corporation.

The court dismissed both requests, finding no oppressive conduct and concluding that a winding up was not just and equitable at this stage.

The court granted a motion to rescind the sale of the property and ordered the return of the purchase funds held in court, less outstanding costs owed to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to produce a 12,000-page 'JDIMI Production Report with Lead Sheet' in a dispute over earn-out payments following the sale of an insurance business.

The defendants resisted, arguing the plaintiff was on a fishing expedition and that the documents contained confidential client information.

The court granted the motion, finding that the documents were relevant, easily producible, and that the defendants' confidentiality concerns could be addressed through a comprehensive confidentiality agreement.

Following settlement of a contempt motion relating to alleged breach of a prior court order governing shared use of a laneway between neighbouring commercial properties, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving parties argued they were the successful party because the settlement resulted in variations to the earlier order consistent with their requested relief.

The responding parties contended that no contempt finding was made and that costs should either be in the cause or not awarded.

The court held the moving parties were successful because the relief obtained reflected the purpose of the motion and addressed the alleged non‑compliance with the prior order.

However, the court found the bill of costs excessive and fixed costs at $11,000 all‑inclusive, payable forthwith.

The moving parties, construction lien creditors of the Mady Group of Companies, brought a motion seeking to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings, amend their statements of claim, and obtain a Mareva injunction against several individuals and corporations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to make full and fair disclosure, failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud or breach of trust, and provided no evidence of a risk of dissipation or removal of assets from the jurisdiction.

The defendant municipality moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered by the plaintiff developer in an action seeking specific performance of a preliminary agreement for redevelopment and sale of municipal lands.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had a reasonable claim to an interest in land under s.103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that the preliminary agreement was not a binding contract because essential terms remained unsettled and the transaction depended on further agreements and negotiations, including participation by a third-party development partner that had withdrawn.

As the agreement was incapable of specific performance and the plaintiff therefore had no reasonable claim to an interest in land, the certificate of pending litigation was discharged.