Lawrence Pick

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant, Hossein Azargive, to reattend discovery to answer numerous refusals.

The refusals concerned questions about photographs, design-related issues, applicable professional standards, and specific factual inquiries regarding negligent renovation work.

The court found the questions relevant to the pleadings and the defendant's defence, including his professional standards and expert opinion.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to reattend discovery.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a judgment ordering the removal of construction completed without building permits.

The court found that while the moving parties met the first three parts of the test for an extension, the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The application judge had jurisdiction to hear the application, and the new grounds of appeal were not raised before the application judge.

The motion to extend time was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to add their mortgagee, Home Trust Company, as a defendant in their action against their insurer.

The appellants sought to add the mortgagee solely to obtain an injunction against mortgage enforcement proceedings while the insurance dispute was resolved.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that an injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action, and the proposed amended statement of claim failed to plead any tenable cause of action against the mortgagee.

In a construction lien action, the defendant contractor sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring an interlocutory motion for security for costs and requested that the plaintiff post $75,000.

The court held that leave may be granted where the proposed interlocutory step is necessary to ensure procedural fairness, particularly where there is evidence suggesting the corporate plaintiff may lack sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

After reviewing evidence including outstanding writs, multiple lien actions, and insufficient financial disclosure, the court found good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked adequate assets.

Security for costs was therefore ordered, but in a reduced amount proportionate to the lien claim and the security already posted to vacate the lien.

Following a construction lien trial in which the plaintiff contractor’s lien claim was dismissed and the defendants succeeded on a counterclaim for overpayment, the court addressed the issue of costs under the Construction Lien Act.

The owners sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $83,000, including a significant expert witness disbursement.

The court applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered complexity, success at trial, and the parties’ conduct.

The contractor argued there had been divided success and challenged the necessity of certain legal work and disbursements, but the court rejected these submissions.

Concluding that the owners were the successful parties and that their claimed costs were reasonable within the expectations of the litigation, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with a reduction to one expert report.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for renovation work performed on a residential property.

The homeowners disputed the claim and counterclaimed alleging overpayment, asserting the work was subject to a guaranteed maximum budget.

The court found no enforceable contract existed because the parties never agreed on the essential term of price.

The contractor was nevertheless entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of services and materials supplied.

Accepting expert quantity‑surveying evidence, the court determined the fair value of the work was less than the amount already paid, resulting in dismissal of the contractor’s claim and a small award to the homeowners on their counterclaim.

The appellant challenged a motion judge’s ruling that Ontario courts had jurisdiction over an action alleging conspiracy to commit fraud.

The Court of Appeal held that the record disclosed tortious conduct with an essential part occurring in Toronto, including a renegotiation agreement and losses arising from it, thereby engaging the presumptive connecting factors that the tort was committed in Ontario and that a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.

The court also accepted evidence linking the appellant to the movement of the respondent’s funds through a company partly owned by the appellant and into the appellant’s personal account.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.

A costs decision following dismissal of an application in a multi‑jurisdictional commercial dispute.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 while the unsuccessful party requested that costs be fixed at approximately half that amount and payable in the cause.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the complexity of jurisdictional issues, the experience and efficiency of counsel, and the reasonableness of the claimed hours and rates.

The court held that the appropriate award should reflect overall reasonableness rather than a line‑by‑line bill assessment and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court also set aside a registrar’s administrative order dismissing the action as abandoned, finding no delay in prosecution.

The defendant, a resident of South Africa, brought a motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, alleged an international conspiracy involving the defendant that resulted in the misappropriation of funds intended for a wind power project.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the plaintiff established a good arguable case for jurisdiction, as the alleged tort and breach of contract had sufficient connections to Ontario.

The court also declined to strike the pleadings, finding them adequate at this early stage, and validated the service of the statement of claim despite technical deficiencies.

The appellant appealed an order refusing an adjournment of an application.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion, noting the appellant had ample time to prepare materials and was on notice that further adjournments would be opposed.

The Court also refused to admit fresh evidence, as it was available prior to the application and the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lack of diligence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Six individuals appealed orders to pay issued against them as directors of a bankrupt corporation for unpaid wages and vacation pay.

Five of the individuals were registered directors or signatories to a unanimous shareholder agreement and were found jointly and severally liable.

The sixth individual, Katharine Renison, was a significant investor whose shares were held in trust by her husband.

The Ministry argued she was the beneficiary of a bare trust and liable as a principal.

The Board found that she did not have control over how her shares were voted and was therefore not a director under the Employment Standards Act.

The orders to pay were affirmed for five applicants and rescinded for Renison.