F.L. Myers

The applicant condominium corporation sought to prohibit the holding of a unitholders' meeting scheduled pursuant to a requisition.

The court issued an endorsement scheduling an urgent case conference and directed the applicant to provide notice of the conference to the affected parties.

The plaintiffs successfully obtained Mareva injunctions and certificates of pending litigation against the defendants in a prior decision.

They sought substantial indemnity costs of $306,793.48 or partial indemnity costs of $208,768.58.

The court found that the defendants' lack of transparency required the plaintiffs to incur significant costs to prove their case.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs fixed at $175,000, payable forthwith, leaving open the possibility for the trial judge to increase the award to substantial indemnity if the plaintiffs succeed at trial.

The Attorney General applied ex parte for a declaration that the temporary suspension of limitation periods under COVID-19 emergency regulations remained effective despite the revocation of the regulation.

The court raised concerns about the procedural appropriateness of seeking a declaration of law without notice or a factual underpinning.

To ensure the opposing view was represented, the court appointed amicus curiae to argue that the application was not a procedurally appropriate mechanism.

Following an order striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim, the successful defendant sought costs of $500.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs request, citing an inability to pay and disagreeing with the underlying decision.

The court found the defendant's request for a token costs award of $500 to be very reasonable, noting that a lack of resources does not provide a license to bring unsuccessful proceedings without consequence.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants, employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, moved to discharge a financing statement registered against them under the Personal Property Security Act by the respondent.

The respondent registered the statements in retaliation for a tax audit decision.

The court found the respondent had no security interest or reasonable basis for the registrations.

The court ordered the discharge of the remaining registration and awarded the mandatory $500 statutory penalty per applicant, along with substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant moved to transfer the action from Cobourg to Toronto, arguing that scheduling a summary judgment motion in Toronto would be more efficient.

The plaintiffs, who commenced the action in Cobourg near their home, opposed the transfer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the onus under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to show that a transfer was desirable in the interest of justice.

The court noted that venue should not be changed merely to obtain more efficient motion scheduling or to queue-jump.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought possession of mortgaged premises and requested interim terms at a case conference pending the return of the main motion.

The defendants contested the court's jurisdiction to make interim orders at a scheduling case conference.

The court held that Rule 50.13(6) and Rule 1.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a judge to make interlocutory orders on terms at a case conference, provided notice is given.

The matter was adjourned to a brief hearing to determine the interim terms.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Certificates of Pending Litigation against the defendants, alleging they perpetrated a Ponzi scheme involving mortgage and securities fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, oppression, and conspiracy, noting that tens of millions of dollars were raised without proper compliance and were unaccounted for.

The court inferred a strong risk of dissipation of assets based on the defendants' conduct, including the listing of a $4 million house and suspicious property transfers.

The motion for the Mareva injunction and CPLs was granted.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful expulsion, assault, and discrimination occurring in and around 2000.

The court dismissed the action, finding it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Furthermore, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction over academic disputes and human rights claims, which must be directed to the university's internal processes and the Human Rights Tribunal, respectively.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing and without notice seeking an order to compel the court to release the audio and video recording of a prior motion hearing to an authorized court transcriptionist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, digital recordings of civil motions are not available.

The court also noted that the prior hearing involved a publication ban protecting minor defendants, and there was no justification to risk further disclosure by releasing the recording.

The respondent lawyers moved to quash the clients' appeal from an assessment officer's certificates regarding fees and costs.

The clients brought a cross-motion to extend the time for their notice of appeal.

The court declined to determine the motion to quash independently of the cross-motion to extend time, noting that assessing the extension of time requires evaluating the merits of the appeal.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together with the main appeal for efficiency.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car appealed four tax assessments totaling approximately $1.5 million for unremitted Ontario retail sales tax (RST) on insurance premiums.

Enterprise brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had collected and remitted federal Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) to the Canada Revenue Agency, not RST.

The court evaluated the credibility of Enterprise's affiant and found that Enterprise had in fact collected RST but mistakenly remitted it to the federal government.

The court granted boomerang summary judgment in favour of the Minister and dismissed the appeals.

The respondent self-represented condominium owner submitted a written request under Rule 2.1 to dismiss the applicant condominium corporation's application to enforce an arbitration award.

The respondent argued the application and a related condominium lien were frivolous and vexatious.

The court dismissed the request, finding nothing on the face of the application to suggest it was an abuse of process, and noted that Rule 2.1 cannot be used to strike a defence or pronounce on the validity of a claim before a hearing.

The moving parties requested to schedule a motion to bar a witness from testifying at the upcoming trial, alleging the witness had previously perjured himself and ignored court orders.

The case management judge declined to schedule the motion, finding that admissibility of evidence is a matter for the trial judge.

The judge emphasized that allowing the interlocutory motion would only cause further delay and tactical gamesmanship in an already protracted litigation.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sued the government for alleged Charter breaches arising from his treatment after immigrating as a refugee in 1957.

A previous action based on the same facts was dismissed in 2019 as statute-barred.

The court found the current action appeared duplicative and directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to explain why the lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The applicant municipal council sought an order under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to allow conflicted councillors to participate in litigation decisions.

A ratepayer had sued eight of the nine councillors personally for $210 million, leaving the council without a quorum to manage the litigation.

The court granted the order to ensure the municipality could function, but imposed a condition requiring the conflicted councillors to obtain judicial approval before agreeing to any settlement of the litigation, analogous to the process for parties under disability.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from an aborted residential real estate transaction.

The defendant purchaser argued she was entitled to revoke her offer before it was accepted and that the irrevocability clause in the standard form agreement was unconscionable.

The court held that the irrevocability clause was binding as it was supported by distinct consideration (the developer taking the property off the market).

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Uber v. Heller, the court found that while there was unequal bargaining power, the irrevocability clause was not an improvident bargain.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $179,599.94.

The plaintiffs requested a three-month adjournment of a scheduled mini-trial following the discharge of their counsel due to a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, citing a history of delay and prejudice.

The court balanced the interests of the parties and the administration of justice, noting the lengthy procedural history, the plaintiffs' familiarity with the case, and the prejudice of further delay.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, ordering the mini-trial to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant, a commercial subtenant operating a cannabis store, sought an urgent order for relief from forfeiture after being shut down by her landlord during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the application met the urgency criterion set out in the Notice to the Profession.

A case conference was scheduled for the same day, and the court urged the parties to cooperate and agree on interim measures pending a full determination.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an urgent injunction to stop the respondents from renovating their unit and having third-party tradespeople attend the building during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents requested an adjournment to seek legal counsel.

On consent, the court adjourned the application and ordered the respondents to allow no one to enter their unit until further order of the court, with exceptions for the external patio, yard, and government first-responders.