D. Michael Brown

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to strike the defendant's statement of defence for failure to attend examinations for discovery and mediation, and in the alternative, sought an order compelling the defendant to produce Marc Wade as its representative for discovery.

The defendant opposed the motion to strike and the order compelling production of Marc Wade, but did not oppose a status hearing or extension of the set-down deadline.

The court granted the motion to compel production of Marc Wade as the discovery representative, finding him to be the controlling mind of the defendant and therefore an appropriate officer or employee under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the statement of defence, finding the defendant had reasonably explained its failures and that striking the defence was not a proportionate remedy.

The court granted a status hearing, extended the set-down deadline, and imposed a court-ordered litigation timetable.

The defendant was ordered to pay costs fixed at $14,000 on the partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a matrimonial home allegedly transferred by one defendant to his spouse in a fraudulent conveyance scheme.

The plaintiffs' claims as creditors were based solely on damages sought in a separate underlying action against the defendant and others.

The court applied the three-part test from Grefford v. Fielding and dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a high probability of success in the underlying action and that the balance of convenience favoured denying the CPL, particularly given that the current property owner was a stranger to the underlying dispute.

This costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following the respondents' success in opposing the appeal.

The court fixes costs at $20,000, apportioned 90% to the group represented by Manson and Fleury, and 10% to the group represented by Overwater, to be paid within 30 days.

This appeal concerned a dispute between a mother and her daughter and son-in-law over beneficial ownership interests in two residential properties.

The trial judge found that the mother beneficially owned one property via a resulting trust and held a 35.6% interest in the second property.

The appellants argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding intentions for the first property and that there was an apprehension of bias due to the immediate oral judgment for the second.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on resulting trust and property interests, and found no reasonable apprehension of bias, though it noted the immediate oral decision was not best practice.

The appellant, Seargeant Picard Incorporated (SPI), appealed a "boomerang" summary judgment order that found the respondents' (Saxbergs') action for breach of a construction contract was not statute-barred.

SPI argued the motion judge erred in the discoverability analysis and in granting the boomerang order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the discoverability analysis, particularly regarding the application of the "appropriate means" test under the Limitations Act, 2002, and upheld the boomerang order given the parties' agreement and the thoroughness of the motion judge's review.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The parties settled the issue of costs for the appeal.

The appellant, Anna Barbiero, was ordered to pay the respondent, Dr. Sheldon Victor Pollack, $10,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant, Bishop Girgis, appealed a lower court decision that interpreted and rectified a will to distribute proceeds from a property sale to the estate of the deceased's brother, rather than to the residuary beneficiary (Bishop Girgis).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the rectification on the basis that it gave effect to the testator's plain intention, despite disagreeing with the application judge's specific analytical path.

Costs were awarded against the appellant.

The appellant, Anna Barbiero, sought to overturn the dismissal of a 21-year-old certified class proceeding against Dr. Sheldon Victor Pollack for unlawfully injecting Liquid Injectable Silicone.

The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the need for a "culture shift" in civil justice to combat delay, finding the Langenecker approach to delay out of step with the Supreme Court of Canada's Hryniak decision.

The court found the 21-year delay inordinate and inexcusable, and the appellant failed to demonstrate error in the prejudice analysis or the exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed an application judge's order declaring a basement unit part of the premises leased by the respondent.

The original lease defined the premises as "the whole," and while an amended lease changed the rent calculation method, the definition of the premises did not change.

The appellant argued the new rent calculation implied the basement was excluded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation that the rent calculation merely changed the method for the entire building, especially given the original landlord's knowledge of basement subletting and the illogical outcome of decreased space with increased rent.

The applicant, West Whitby Landowners Group Inc., sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that dismissed their judicial review application against the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and Elexicon Energy Inc. The Divisional Court had found it lacked jurisdiction over the OEB's opinion on cost allocation, deeming it not a statutory power of decision affecting legal rights, and that certiorari was unavailable.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, clarifying the test for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

The court emphasized that the key consideration for granting leave is the impact the decision will have on the development of Ontario's jurisprudence, particularly in administrative and public law, moving away from a rigid checklist approach.

The appellants, Enhanced Care Pharmacy and 2819826 Ontario Inc., appealed an order directing them to cease pharmacy operations in a condominium building.

The respondents, World Medpharm Inc., held an exclusive right to operate a pharmacy in the building, granted by an Exclusive Use Agreement and enforced by a Declaration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the appellants were aware of the prohibition, the respondents had standing to enforce the declaration, and there was no basis to exercise discretion to relieve the appellants from compliance.

The court found no error in the application judge's rejection of arguments regarding the impact on the respondents' business or harm to patients.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing the appellant's action as an abuse of process, specifically for contravening s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act by bringing an action within one month of delivering a bill without leave.

The appellant argued errors regarding the nature of retainer, procedural unfairness in dismissing an amendment motion, and reversal of burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision, confirming the action was an abuse of process, and upholding the dismissal of the amendment motion due to lack of leave.

This is an appeal from a family law trial decision concerning spousal support, child support, equalization, and unjust enrichment.

The appellant raised eight grounds of appeal, grouped into errors in income imputation for both parties, errors in equalization payment calculation (including business valuation and a marriage-date account receivable), and the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in disallowing a marriage-date deduction of $248,567 in the equalization calculation.

All other grounds of appeal, including those related to income imputation and the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, were dismissed.

The respondent's motion for fresh evidence was also dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to divided success.

The Kriesers appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for construction deficiencies and breach of fiduciary duty, and granted judgment to the respondents for outstanding invoices.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's determination that the Kriesers breached the contract by withholding payments, which disentitled them to warranty claims, and that there was insufficient evidence for the remaining deficiency claims.

The court also upheld the finding that no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, and affirmed the trial judge's cost award.

The appellant, Brian Kumar, brought a second appeal seeking to set aside a default order for support arrears, arguing that a Mareva injunction impacted his ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower courts' consideration of the Mareva injunction.

Both the original hearing judge and the first appeal judge had expressly considered its impact, and the appellant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption regarding his ability to pay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This is an appeal from a family proceeding where the appellant sought to overturn the motion judge's decision to terminate spousal and child support obligations for the respondent due to his retirement, and to increase her spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the respondent's retirement was reasonable, that spousal support should be terminated due to material change in circumstances and the appellant's improvident financial decisions, and that child support for the youngest child should end by August 2023.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs award.

The moving defendants, 1171328 Ontario Ltd. and Living Properties Inc., brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action, arising from flooding incidents in 2013, was commenced in 2015, and no significant steps were taken by the plaintiff to advance it since 2018.

The court found the delay to be inordinate (7.5 years from commencement, 6 years of inactivity), inexcusable (no cogent explanation provided despite multiple opportunities), and prejudicial to the defendants (rebuttable presumption of prejudice not overcome, actual prejudice due to lost documents and unavailable witnesses).

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.

This endorsement addresses the respondent's attempt to file a factum in an appeal that exceeded the prescribed length and included unauthorized schedules, leading to its refusal by court registry staff.

The judge, while affirming the registry's decision for non-compliance, granted the respondent leave to file the factum (after a minor reduction) due to the imminent appeal hearing.

To ensure procedural fairness, the appellant was also granted leave to file a reply factum of a specified length.

The judge also used the opportunity to advocate for a rule change to permit reply factums as of right in appeals.

The appellant, 2557904 Ontario Inc. (the stalking horse bidder), appealed a motion judge's order that dismissed the receiver's motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) and instead approved the debtor's (1000093910 Ontario Inc.) motion to redeem a first mortgage.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by not ensuring 255 received compensation for costs thrown away and by granting provisional enforcement of the order after an appeal notice was filed.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to require the debtor to pay $300,000 in compensation to 255 and setting aside the provisional execution.

The court also ordered that if the refinancing transaction does not close, the AVO for 255 will be granted.

The Court of Appeal heard motions in an appeal concerning the receivership of a debtor's property.

The appellant, a successful bidder, appealed two lower court orders that terminated its Stalking Horse Agreement and approved the debtor's refinancing transaction.

The motion judge referred several issues to a panel, including the appellant's standing and right to appeal, and whether the lower court erred in terminating the agreement and granting provisional enforcement.

The Court of Appeal continued the stay of provisional execution of the lower court orders, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of court-approved sale processes, especially given the absence of reasons from the motion judge for his initial decision.