Lauren Ray

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against two defendants, Peter Corbiere and Deborah Paine, for failing to comply with an order compelling examination in aid of execution and production of financial documents.

The court found both defendants in contempt.

This decision focuses on the sentencing of Peter Corbiere, as Deborah Paine's matter was adjourned due to partial compliance.

The court imposed a 60-day conditional sentence on Corbiere, including house arrest and compliance conditions, and ordered him to pay substantial indemnity costs of $14,529.53.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appeal involved four consolidated actions concerning personal liability of corporate directors and officers in the context of real estate development and mortgage transactions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusions on the legal issue of personal liability based on pleaded allegations and legal principles.

The costs decision addresses the appropriate costs awards for the successful and unsuccessful parties across the multiple appeals.

The defendant was successful on a motion for security for costs and sought partial indemnity costs of $41,616.76.

The plaintiff argued the requested costs were excessive and suggested $25,000 in the cause.

The court agreed the defendant's requested costs were excessive, noting the defendant was only partially successful in the quantum of security ordered.

The court fixed the defendant's costs at $25,000, payable within 30 days.

Four consolidated class actions brought by small investors who invested in syndicated mortgages promoted by Fortress Real Capital Inc. and Fortress Real Developments Inc. The investors alleged misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence.

The motion judge struck claims against individual respondents Jawad Rathore and Vincenzo Petrozza, and dismissed claims to enforce syndicated mortgages against Empire Pace (1088 Progress) Ltd. and ADI Developments entities.

The appellants appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of personal claims against Rathore and Petrozza but reversed the dismissal of mortgage enforcement claims against Empire Pace and ADI, finding that the motion judge erred in applying Rule 21 to matters requiring evidentiary findings regarding contract interpretation and disclosure.

FCA Canada Inc. applied to set aside an arbitration award that ordered it to remove and replace an aftermarket remote starter in Christine Lamontagne's vehicle.

The arbitrator found a "Current Defect" in the vehicle and ordered the remedy.

FCA argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction or exceeded his authority, and that the finding of a defect was unreasonable.

The court dismissed FCA's application, finding that FCA waived its right to object to jurisdiction by not raising it promptly as a preliminary issue, and that the arbitrator's decision on the merits was reasonable and within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

This costs endorsement followed a successful status hearing motion by the plaintiffs and a partially successful cross-motion by the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs for the status hearing, citing the defendants' litigation conduct.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs for the status hearing, finding no basis for substantial indemnity as the criticized conduct related to the general litigation, not the specific motion.

For the cross-motion, where success was divided, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs sought a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to allow their action to proceed despite a five-year delay and requested a timetable.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal due to non-compensable prejudice from a key witness's death and alleged spoliation of evidence.

The court found the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, which was largely attributable to interlocutory proceedings and the defendants' actions.

The court also determined that any prejudice from the witness's death or evidence destruction did not arise from the delay necessitating the status hearing and was not so extensive as to prevent a fair trial.

The defendants' cross-motion to strike parts of a reply affidavit was granted in part.

The main motion to allow the action to proceed was granted, and a timetable was imposed.

The plaintiff purchaser and defendant vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The transaction failed to close after a dispute over zoning conditions and disclosure of OMB mediation details.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance and moved for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that while there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the equities favoured the defendant because the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court also dismissed the defendant's motion, as the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

Following a successful pleadings motion that struck the claims against the Adi Developments defendants without leave to amend, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $65,000.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive and suggested $22,000.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants' costs should be limited by the plaintiff's own expected costs or the costs awarded to other defendants.

The court fixed the costs payable to the Adi Developments defendants at $50,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action concerning investments in a syndicated mortgage for a land development project.

The Adi Development Defendants brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim and dismiss the action against them.

Relying on reasons released simultaneously in a related action, the court held that the sealed contract rule prevented the plaintiff from suing to enforce the syndicated mortgage because he was not a party to it.

The motion was granted, and the claims against the Adi Development Defendants were struck out without leave to amend.