Dennis Ovsyannikov

The court considered a motion by the defendant to strike portions of the plaintiff’s statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The impugned pleadings alleged similar acts of unsafe practices and unfair treatment of other employees.

The court held that these pleadings were relevant and not improper, as they provided context for the plaintiff’s claims and notice to the defendant.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought and subsequently abandoned a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action regarding renovation services.

The defendants sought costs for the abandoned motion forthwith.

The plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to trial as the work done would be useful later.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs forthwith, finding it unfair to defer costs to a trial that might not occur.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,713.50, as there was no evidence the plaintiff acted unreasonably or in bad faith to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing that a Founders' Restricted Rights Agreement explicitly mandated arbitration for all disputes.

Despite the plaintiff initially commencing an action to gain discovery advantages, both parties ultimately agreed on the validity and enforceability of the arbitration clause.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff had no right to litigate the dispute in court and should have pursued arbitration or discontinued the action earlier.

Costs were awarded to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unnecessary litigation and refusal to withdraw the action.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision allowing an examination in aid of execution of a corporate representative following default on settlement payments.

The court considered the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It held there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court’s decision that the Master had erred by treating examinations of a judgment debtor as discretionary and by applying principles relevant to examinations of non-parties.

The court also found no conflicting authority warranting leave and concluded that further delay would not serve the interests of justice.

Leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

Judgment creditors sought leave under Rule 60.18(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine a director of the judgment debtor in aid of execution following default on a settlement judgment.

Prior to the examination, the creditors commenced a separate action alleging fraudulent conveyances, bulk sales violations, and oppressive conduct relating to transfers of the debtor’s assets.

The court held that once the new action covering the same subject matter had been commenced, the purpose of an examination in aid of execution was exhausted because the creditor’s rights were merged into the action.

Allowing the examination would create an unfair multiplicity of proceedings and effectively permit duplicate discovery.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.