K. Prehogan

The moving party, Michael Shtaif, was unsuccessful on a motion seeking to declare an assignment of judgment and certificates of judgment invalid.

The responding party sought full indemnity costs of $35,376.01, arguing the motion was an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior decisions.

The court found the moving party's conduct amounted to an abuse of process but did not rise to the rare and exceptional level required for full indemnity costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $25,278.21.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion to set aside two certificates of judgment and declare the assignment of the judgment from the original plaintiff to its successor invalid.

The court found that an order to continue was not required post-judgment and that the defendant's challenge to the assignment was a collateral attack on prior decisions of the Superior Court and Court of Appeal.

The court also held that the issuance of certificates of judgment is a purely administrative function, and there was no basis to set them aside.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff franchisee brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant franchisor from acting on a Notice of Expiration of a restaurant franchise agreement.

The franchise agreement explicitly stated there was no right to renew after the initial 10-year term.

The plaintiff argued it was entitled to an extension based on alleged oral representations and breaches of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court found the requested relief was a mandatory injunction requiring a strong prima facie case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's case was weak, any potential remedy would likely be in damages rather than an order compelling renewal, and the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The moving defendants brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by the plaintiffs during examinations for discovery, including questions answered under Rule 34.12(2).

The court declined to make a blanket ruling deferring all Rule 34.12(2) answers to the trial judge, opting to rule on relevance for discovery purposes while leaving trial admissibility to the trial judge.

The court found that questions regarding past development applications and the plaintiffs' own redevelopment intentions were improperly refused and must be answered.

However, questions regarding the plaintiffs' current willingness to accept integration features, the substance of settlement discussions, and the plaintiffs' financial information were properly refused.

The court held that pleading the fact of settlement discussions to explain delay does not waive settlement privilege over the substance of those discussions.

The moving defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, a corporation and an individual, under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The court found the defendants failed to meet their initial onus regarding the individual plaintiff.

For the corporate plaintiff, while impecuniosity was established, the court declined to order security for costs, finding it would be unjust given the merits of the plaintiff's claim, the defendants' alleged role in causing the impecuniosity, and the delay in bringing the motion.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff landlord sought summary judgment for approximately $800,000 in alleged unpaid rent from its commercial tenant and guarantor, arising from the tenant paying only 50% of minimum rent after opening its store before certain parking spaces were provided.

The dispute turned on whether a lease amending agreement implicitly removed the tenant’s contractual right to pay reduced rent when opening conditions were unmet.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation emphasizing objective intention derived from the text and surrounding circumstances.

It held that the amendment concerning alternative parking did not modify the tenant’s right under the original lease to pay 50% rent until the required parking spaces were delivered.

The landlord’s claim for back rent was dismissed and the related summary judgment motion by the landlord’s former lawyers seeking dismissal of the negligence claim against them was also dismissed.