Khaled Gheddai

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the self-represented defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim due to her persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding the payment of mortgage arrears and carrying costs for a disputed residential property.

The court found the defendant's breaches were deliberate, material, and severely prejudiced the plaintiff.

The court struck the defendant's pleadings without leave to amend under Rule 60.12 and granted default judgment to the plaintiff, including a declaration of sole ownership, an order for the defendant to vacate, and compensatory damages.

The court declined to award punitive damages and discharged the certificate of pending litigation.

The plaintiff, the registered owner of a property, sought to enforce court orders requiring the defendant to pay mortgage arrears and ongoing mortgage payments.

The defendant, a self-represented litigant, brought a motion to vary the orders, arguing she should not have to pay arrears and that carrying costs and mortgage payments should be shared equally.

The defendant also sought an order restraining the plaintiff from attending the property.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding her evidence inconsistent and unpersuasive.

The court upheld the requirement for the defendant to pay all arrears and ongoing mortgage payments, and directed an in-person hearing on the restraining order issue due to conflicting evidence regarding allegations of threats and intimidation.

The tenant sought an extension of time to review an order that had dismissed her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

Despite being granted multiple extensions and accommodations to file her motion materials, the tenant repeatedly failed to meet the court's deadlines.

The court dismissed the motion for an extension of time due to the tenant's delay and failure to abide by court directions, leaving the original dismissal of her appeal in place.

The respondent landlord brought a motion in writing to dismiss the tenant's appeal due to delay and failure to comply with court directions.

The tenant had previously failed to attend case conferences and missed multiple deadlines to file her appeal materials, despite being given extensions by the court.

The court found that the tenant had been given sufficient opportunity to pursue her appeal but failed to do so.

Applying Rules 3.04(4) and 61.13(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff, Capstack Advisory Services Inc., brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of Northern Lights Enterprise Inc. and Aalto Development Inc. due to their failure to serve an affidavit of documents.

The defendants argued the motion was premature and improper, requesting a reciprocal order for the plaintiff to provide a better affidavit of documents and a discovery timetable.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the circumstances did not warrant such a severe remedy, partly due to the plaintiff's own delays and failure to respond to alleged deficiencies in its own disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered a specific timetable for both parties to complete their discovery obligations, emphasizing the "Three C's" of cooperation, communication, and common sense.

The Ouyang defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rules 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff resided outside Ontario under subrule (a).

However, under subrule (e), the court determined the plaintiff's claim against the Ouyang defendants appeared frivolous and vexatious, as the loan agreement was with a non-party corporation and guaranteed by another defendant, with no legal basis for the Ouyang defendants' liability.

The court also found insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's assets in Ontario.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for directions regarding his examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action, seeking to exclude the defendant's representative, limit access to the transcript, and prevent its use in a workplace investigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidentiary basis to exclude the representative or restrict access to the transcript.

The court also authorized the defendant to use the discovery transcript to conduct a workplace investigation pursuant to its statutory obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to have the plaintiff's long-term disability action and a separate tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident heard together or consecutively.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the actions being at different stages of litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the actions shared some common facts, the issues were discrete, and delaying the advanced long-term disability action would prejudice the plaintiff.