Katherine Lee

North Bay Capital Investments Ltd. (North Bay) brought a motion to discharge a construction lien filed by XPL Construction Solutions Inc. (XPL) and to dismiss the action against it, with Verg Construction Corp. and Anthony Vergalito supporting the motion.

North Bay later abandoned the dismissal request.

The court found significant credibility issues and competing narratives regarding the scope of work and invoicing practices between XPL and Verg.

The judge dismissed North Bay's motion to discharge the lien, concluding that there were triable issues and that XPL's claim was not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

However, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the lien amount from $872,617.26 to $699,535.02 due to certain improperly included expenses and exaggerated time claims, without prejudice to XPL pursuing the full amount at trial.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of defence without leave to amend.

The underlying action sought to enforce costs awards against the appellants.

The Associate Justice struck the defence after finding the appellants had flouted multiple peremptory court orders and a 'last chance' order regarding discovery and case management steps.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion to strike the pleading due to contumelious disregard for court orders.

This appeal concerned the personal liability of an individual who signed dishonoured cheques under an unregistered trade name.

The appellant, a directing mind of several corporations, argued he did not intend personal liability, believing he was signing on behalf of a corporation.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that under section 131(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act, signing a bill in a trade name or assumed name incurs personal liability, especially when the name is not registered to the corporate entity.

The court emphasized the Act's purpose of ensuring certainty in negotiable instruments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor for repayment of a $1,000,000 loan.

The defendants denied borrowing the money, alleging the loan agreement was forged and that the funds were held in trust and disbursed in cash to third parties pursuant to a promissory note.

The court found the evidentiary record from both parties to be deficient, with missing emails, text messages, and financial records, and significant credibility issues on both sides.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed as the court could not make the necessary findings of fact to achieve a fair and just result without a trial.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful application to gain vacant possession of a property.

The respondents failed to deliver costs submissions.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were warranted due to the respondents' reprehensible conduct, which included ignoring court orders, using stalling tactics, and attempting to file improper and vexatious evidence at the last minute.

The court awarded the applicant $50,000 in all-inclusive substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant landlord sought damages for unpaid rent and utilities from the respondent tenants who had vacated the property.

The respondents, who did not appear at the hearing, made a last-minute request for an adjournment, which the court denied due to their repeated failure to comply with court orders and retain counsel.

The court found that the lease had not been renewed and that the respondents were overholding tenants.

The court ordered the respondents to pay $122,500 in unpaid rent and $1,324.60 in unpaid utilities, plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a $1,000,000 loan.

The individual defendant alleged his signature on the loan agreement was forged and claimed the funds were distributed according to a promissory note, which the plaintiffs in turn alleged was forged.

Finding that credibility was clearly in issue, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the parties to provide oral evidence pursuant to Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if a trial is required.

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

The plaintiff, an auto parts supplier, brought a motion for summary judgment against corporate defendants operating auto body repair facilities and an individual defendant for unpaid invoices.

The corporate defendants consented to judgment for the principal amount, leaving the issues of pre-judgment interest and costs for the court.

The court found that the credit application stipulated a 2% monthly interest rate on unpaid accounts and ordered pre-judgment interest at this rate from December 1, 2019.

The issue of costs was reserved, and the motion against the individual defendant was adjourned by consent.

The parties could not agree on the terms of a formal order following a previous endorsement.

The court resolved the disputes over the competing draft orders, deciding to include a reference to the Investigative Receiver's Interim Report, declining to add a preamble regarding an undertaking as to damages, and including a paragraph explicitly dismissing the defendant's motion to set aside an ex parte order for lack of full and fair disclosure.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation, a Mareva injunction, and the appointment of an Investigative Receiver.

The defendant Bayview Creek (CIM) LP moved to set aside the injunction, arguing the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The court found no material non-disclosure or lack of frankness regarding the plaintiffs' allegations of misrepresentation and breach of terms.

Due to the complex commercial interests involved, including mortgagees intending to bring enforcement proceedings, the court transferred the matter to the Commercial List and extended the interim orders.