Kayla Kwinter

The court approved a proposed settlement and certified the action for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class consists of approximately 100 investors in a failed real estate limited partnership project.

The settlement restores the class members’ proportionate interest in the property, now with greater development density and less debt, and is considered generous.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved class counsel’s fees.

The action will continue only as between the defendants for unresolved crossclaims.

This motion concerned the proper preservation of construction liens, specifically whether the lien claimants' rights were governed by the "old" 45-day period under the Construction Lien Act or the "new" 60-day period under the Construction Act.

The determination hinged on the interpretation of the Act's transition provisions, which apply if a contract for improvement or a procurement process was commenced by the owner before July 1, 2018.

The court analyzed whether certain corporate entities, which had early involvement in the project but did not hold legal title to the premises before the critical date, qualified as "owners" under the Act.

Applying corporate law principles, the court found that these entities, despite their interest in the project, did not possess a lienable interest in the land and thus were not "owners" for the purpose of triggering the old Act's transition rules.

Consequently, the new 60-day preservation period applied, and the liens were found to be properly preserved.

The non-party contractor's motion for a declaration that the liens had expired was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, sought a declaration that the defendant, Sovereign General Insurance Company, was required to provide coverage for the theft of a pick-up truck from Orr Motors, based on its garage policy.

Sovereign brought a motion for summary judgment, relying on a policy exclusion for leased vehicles.

The court found that the evidentiary record was insufficient to fully appreciate the case, particularly regarding the lease agreement's commencement and the reason the truck was on the lot at the time of theft.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to deficiencies in both parties' evidentiary submissions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file an affidavit and expert handwriting evidence after cross-examinations, in connection with a pending motion to set aside a default judgment.

The defendants opposed the motion.

The court applied a flexible, contextual approach to Rule 39.02, considering the relevance and responsiveness of the evidence, potential non-compensable prejudice, and the explanation for the delay.

While the evidence was relevant and responsive, the court found that granting leave would cause prejudice to the defendants, necessitate further adjournments, and was inconsistent with the principle of proportionality, especially in a simplified procedure case.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action arising from an assault during a soccer game.

Brandon Gomes punched Michael Da Silva during a match, resulting in injury.

The appellants claimed negligence in supervision and breach of the Occupiers Liability Act against the respondents.

The motion judge found no evidence that Gomes' prior conduct was predictive of violent behaviour, that the respondents breached any standard of care, or that the playing field was unsafe.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors and that the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues for trial.

The appellant moved to set aside a single judge's order dismissing his motion to set aside the Registrar's order that had dismissed his appeal for delay in perfecting it.

The appellant had failed to perfect his appeal within the extended timeframe and took no steps to challenge the Registrar's dismissal for eight months.

The Court of Appeal upheld the single judge's decision, finding that the appellant's medical condition did not adequately explain the extensive delays, that the motion appeared motivated by a case conference order requiring payment of outstanding costs, and that the respondents were entitled to rely on the finality of the dismissal order.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action or being frivolous and vexatious under Rule 21.01(1)(b) or 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found it plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against either the corporate or personal defendants, as the allegations of discrimination, defamation, fraud, improper discipline, and conversion lacked specific material facts and failed to meet the legal requirements for each tort.

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim was denied, and the claim was struck in its entirety.