J. Sydor

The claimant sought $150,000 in damages for injurious affection, alleging business losses due to the temporary closure of an intersection during the construction of the Rt.

Hon. Herb Gray Parkway.

Following a period of inactivity and missed status hearings, the Tribunal convened a status hearing at the mutual request of the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing for April 2022 and issued procedural directions for the exchange of witness statements and a joint document book.

The applicant, Ying Tsuen Tiao, brought an application to declare a fraudulent discharge of her first mortgage void and to rectify the land register by restoring her mortgage to its original first priority position.

The respondents, Dino Leone and Jeanette Leone, had fraudulently discharged the applicant's mortgage and subsequently registered new mortgages.

While the Director of Titles agreed to delete the fraudulent discharge, they argued the applicant's mortgage should be reinstated in a lower priority.

The court applied the theory of deferred indefeasibility, finding the Leones were fraudulent persons and the subsequent mortgagees were intermediate owners.

The court ordered the fraudulent discharge void and the applicant's mortgage restored to first priority, ahead of the subsequent mortgages.

Following the dismissal of Unimac's motion seeking the recusal of the Master on grounds of racial bias, the responding parties sought costs.

Unimac argued costs should be deferred to the Divisional Court pending judicial review.

The Master determined it was appropriate to fix costs immediately.

Finding that Unimac's motion was an abuse of process, involved scurrilous and unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of the judicial officer, caused unnecessary delay, and that Unimac failed to accept a reasonable offer to settle, the Master awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

Unimac was ordered to pay $52,810.37 to the Lead Respondents and $6,728.30 to St. Clare's.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that dismissed its motion to disqualify the defendants' law firm of record.

A lawyer who had worked extensively on the plaintiff's case moved to the defendants' boutique law firm.

The plaintiff argued the ethical wall put in place was insufficient.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order because he appeared to reverse the onus by treating the matter as a balancing act rather than applying the rebuttable presumption of disqualification.

The court also found the issue of migrating lawyers and confidential information to be of significant importance to the profession and the public.