Laura Dryden Brazil

The appellant appealed the summary judgment dismissing her two actions against the respondent, alleging misapprehension of evidence, erroneous refusal of an adjournment, and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, concluding that the appellant failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial and did not establish any error in the exercise of discretion, bias, or procedural unfairness.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion seeking an order for the preservation of $41,620 in Canadian currency, pending an application for civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was proceeds of unlawful activity, citing its discovery with drugs, a firearm magazine, multiple phones, and identification in other names, as well as the interested party's admission of being at an "underground casino" and outstanding fraud charges.

The court also determined that preserving the currency was in the interests of justice, as it was not "manifestly harsh" or "draconian," especially given the interested party's consent.

The motion for preservation was granted.

The plaintiff sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a condominium unit following a failed purchase transaction involving alleged fraud and a forged signature.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found no triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land, as his interest was lost upon failure to close.

Even if a triable issue existed, the property was not unique, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court emphasized that the vendor (Monarch) was an innocent party and should not be unduly prejudiced by holding the unit.

Costs were awarded to the responding defendants.

The defendants in two construction lien actions, Pier 27 and L Tower, brought motions seeking orders for the plaintiff, Yuanda Canada Enterprises Ltd., to post security for costs totaling over $1 million.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the defendants failed to establish "good reason to believe" that the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The court emphasized the high threshold for such motions, requiring indicia of insolvency or instability, and noted that the certified basic holdback owed to the plaintiff by the Pier 27 Defendants, exceeding the claimed security for costs, constituted a sufficient asset.

Bell Canada sought an interlocutory injunction against Cogeco Cable Canada GP Inc. regarding two aspects of Cogeco's new advertising campaign: the phrase "the best Internet experience in your neighbourhood" and the rebranding of Internet packages with the prefix "Ultra" (e.g., UltraFibre 250).

Bell alleged false and misleading representations under the Competition Act and Trade-marks Act, as well as common-law claims.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

It found a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored granting an injunction against the use of "the best Internet experience in your neighbourhood," as Cogeco could not objectively claim to offer the best speed and performance in all areas.

However, the court denied an injunction regarding the "UltraFibre" branding, deeming it puffery when accompanied by specific speed commitments.