Karen Perron

The plaintiff bank brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action, commenced in 2018 under simplified procedure rules, had not progressed past the exchange of productions after nearly eight years.

The court applied the four-factor test from Piedrahita v. Costin, finding that while the motion was brought promptly and the defendant suffered no actual prejudice from the delay, the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for abandoning litigation steps for 17 months in favour of settlement discussions, and did not establish inadvertence.

The court held that the values of timeliness and efficiency outweighed the absence of prejudice, and dismissed the motion.

Case conference endorsement in a civil action that had been transferred from Ottawa to Toronto on consent.

The defendants sought to vacate the case conference following the transfer order, arguing the Ottawa court lacked authority to make further decisions.

The court declined to vacate, finding nothing in the transfer order or the Rules prevented it from finalizing pending issues to ensure an orderly transition.

The court directed the parties to proceed to examinations for discovery rather than pursue further production motions, reasoning that outstanding production issues could be canvassed under oath during examinations and a timetable was established on consent.

The defendants brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' second reply pleading and to revise the litigation timetable.

The court found that paragraphs responding to unamended portions of the amended statement of defence were improper, relying on Van Huizen v Trisura, and that many allegations improperly pleaded evidence and legal argument contrary to Rule 25.06.

Paragraphs 5-7, 8-32, and 45-51 of the second reply were struck.

The court revised the timetable on consent, assumed case management, and barred further motions without leave.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the defendants.

This is a supplementary endorsement addressing the requirements for issuing a writ of possession under Rule 60.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court clarified that when a moving party seeks leave to issue a writ of possession on an ex parte basis after judgment has been issued, "sufficient notice of the proceeding" requires that all occupants receive full particulars of the judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff's template Notice Demanding Possession was deficient because it failed to attach a copy of the judgment and was ambiguous regarding whether judgment had actually been obtained, leaving occupants uncertain about their obligation to vacate or right to seek relief.

A creditor sought relief in a consumer proposal proceeding, including lifting the stay of proceedings to allow a Landlord and Tenant Board application to proceed, admitting his claim in full under section 135 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and obtaining a ruling that the debtor's claim should not be released from discharge.

The creditor alleged unpaid rent and property damage.

The court dismissed the motion to admit the claim under section 135, finding the LTB was the proper forum to determine the landlord-tenant dispute.

The court granted the motion to lift the stay to allow the LTB proceedings to continue, finding the creditor would be materially prejudiced without such relief and that it was equitable to do so.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff to set aside an administrative dismissal of a personal injury action for delay.

The court reviewed the relevant factors, including the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The court found the explanation for delay satisfactory, attributed the delay to counsel rather than the plaintiff, and found no actual or presumed prejudice to the defendant.

The action was reinstated, but no costs were awarded to either party.

The defendant brought a motion for production of documents from the minor plaintiff’s mother, a non-party, relating to the income of the deceased and allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found the documents relevant and necessary for the assessment of damages in a Family Law Act claim and ordered their production, rejecting arguments of prematurity and privacy.

The court also awarded costs to the defendant, with a reduction for issues abandoned or narrowed during the motion.

The plaintiffs sought to consolidate a 2023 action with a related 2021 action involving overlapping parties and issues arising from an “Estate Freeze” transaction.

The court found that both actions shared common questions of fact and arose from the same series of transactions, and that consolidation (or hearing the actions together) would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, inconsistent findings, and unnecessary costs.

The court ordered the actions to be heard together or one after the other, subject to the trial judge’s directions, and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion for security for costs against Telecore, a corporate plaintiff, in a procurement action.

The court considered whether the AGC required leave to bring the motion, the sufficiency of Telecore’s assets, and whether Telecore was impecunious.

The court found Telecore to be impecunious but determined that the AGC’s delay in bringing the motion was not justified.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and no costs were awarded on the motion.

Cette décision porte sur une motion de Facinet-Bigus Bangoura visant à obtenir l'autorisation de modifier sa déclaration introductive d’instance contre l’Université Algoma.

La Cour examine la suffisance des causes d’action proposées, notamment en diffamation, discrimination, violation d’équité procédurale et rupture de contrat.

La juge Perron conclut que la déclaration amendée ne révèle aucune cause d’action fondée contre l’université et que l’action constitue un recours abusif visant à contester une décision académique déjà tranchée.

La motion est rejetée et des dépens sont accordés à la défenderesse.

This decision concerns a status hearing in a civil action for damages for sexual assault.

The plaintiff, A.B., was required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The court found that A.B. provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, primarily due to the parties' agreement to await the completion of related criminal proceedings and the production of Wagg documents before proceeding with discoveries.

The court also found that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action continued.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The decision concerns a motion by creditors Jennifer Look-Hong and Geoffrey MacKay in the bankruptcy of The Aggressive Good Inc. The motion sought, among other things, to challenge the eligibility of Christopher Falconi to act as an inspector and to have his votes at the first meeting of creditors revoked.

The court found that the Trustee made a palpable and overriding error in determining the date Mr. Falconi ceased to be a director, and that Mr. Falconi was not dealing at arm’s length with the debtor within the year prior to bankruptcy.

The court also found that Mr. Falconi was ineligible to act as an inspector due to his involvement in contested actions against the estate.

The motion was granted, and the order was signed as requested, with a new meeting of creditors to be held.

The defendants, Lee Darvin Weinkauf and Merlie Otadora Weinkauf, brought a motion to set aside their noting in default and a default judgment obtained by RFA Bank of Canada in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court reviewed the chronology of the mortgage default, the parties' communications, and the applicable legal test for setting aside default judgments.

The court found that the defendants did not provide a plausible excuse for their failure to defend, nor did they establish an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This order grants the motion of the defendants, Carehaus Properties Inc. and Darren Voros, allowing their crossclaim to proceed and confirming it was never deemed dismissed.

The court also orders the responding parties, IHA Canada Inc., Louise Desjardins, and William Kerr, to pay the moving parties $6,500.00 in costs within 30 days, with interest accruing at four percent per year from February 8, 2025.

The Landlords (Vince and Colleen Battista) brought a motion seeking an order declaring that the stay of proceedings under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) does not apply to the eviction provisions of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order, or alternatively, lifting the stay under section 69.4 of the BIA.

The LTB order required the bankrupt tenant (Justin Evan Stevenson) to vacate the unit due to non-payment of rent.

The court found that the eviction provisions of the LTB order are not "claims provable" under section 121(1) of the BIA, and therefore the automatic stay does not apply.

Alternatively, the court would have lifted the stay as it would be just and equitable and would not affect other creditors.

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the Landlord.

The plaintiff, Aenos Food Services Inc., brought a motion seeking particulars of the defendants' (Emily Tierney and Tierney Stauffer LLP) Statement of Defence in a solicitor's negligence action governed by simplified procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the particulars sought were within the plaintiff's knowledge, the defence already contained sufficient material facts, and the request was an attempt to elicit evidence prior to discovery, which is contrary to the principles of simplified procedure.

The court emphasized that particulars are to clarify pleadings, not to serve as a substitute for discovery, and that such motions contribute to delays and costs, undermining access to justice in Rule 76 actions.

The Landlord sought an order declaring that the stay of proceedings under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) does not apply to the eviction provisions of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order, or alternatively, lifting the stay under section 69.4 BIA.

The bankrupt tenant opposed, arguing new maintenance issues.

The court found that the LTB order for possession is not a "claim provable" under section 121(1) BIA, thus the automatic stay did not apply to the eviction.

Alternatively, the court would have lifted the stay as it would not affect other creditors and the Landlord continued to incur expenses.

The motion was granted, and the Landlord was awarded costs.