Dr. Ran He

The Defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, ordinarily resident outside Ontario and lacking sufficient assets in Ontario, was ordered to post security for costs.

The court applied Rule 56.01(1) holistically, considering factors such as the plaintiff's residence, lack of assets, and the merits of the claim, which were not found to have a good chance of success.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument of delay by the defendants.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff established a real estate partnership, the plaintiff sought costs.

The defendant opposed, arguing costs should wait until the ordered accounting was complete, but failed to submit his own bill of costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff her full claimed partial indemnity costs and disbursements, noting her significant success, the complexity of the matter, and the reasonable fees charged by her counsel.

The moving party sought summary judgment arising from a joint real estate venture in which residential property was acquired in the responding party’s name, renovated, and intended to generate rental income.

The court held that the objective documentary record, including written agreements, bank records, and contemporaneous communications, established a partnership under the Partnerships Act rather than a loan or tenancy arrangement, and declared that the responding party held the property in trust for the partnership with the moving party having a 50 percent beneficial interest.

The court further found breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and breach of the partnership agreement where unauthorized mortgages were registered without consent, and directed a reference to an Associate Judge to complete the partnership accounting and quantify damages tied to excess mortgage debt.

A permanent injunction was granted restraining further interference with the moving party’s use and enjoyment of the property, and the counterclaim was effectively defeated by the summary judgment ruling.

A case conference was held to discuss the process for an upcoming mini trial.

The court directed the parties to exchange witness lists, proposed evidence, and any additional materials by January 20, 2024, emphasizing the principle of proportionality.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of a 50% beneficial ownership interest in a property and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with her use of the property due to alleged assaults.

The defendant disputed the partnership and the assaults, claiming the plaintiff made false police reports.

The court found that the assault allegations raised a credibility issue and directed a one-day mini-trial under Rule 20 to hear oral evidence from the parties.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a previously dismissed motion by the plaintiffs for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The defendant, having successfully opposed the CPL, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court awarded the defendant $24,000 in costs, finding it fair and reasonable.

The decision emphasized that costs should follow the event and that the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the original motion, which necessitated an urgent and expedited process, contributed to the increased costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the subsequent failure of the third-party sale, which was the basis for the original motion's urgency, should negate the costs award, as this was not known at the time of the motion's disposition.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and its director for repayment of two loans and associated fees.

The court found that the fees charged on the loans amounted to effective interest rates of 150% and 180%, which exceeded the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code.

The court set aside the fees under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act but granted summary judgment for the principal amount of the loans.

The court also found the director personally liable as a guarantor, as she signed the promissory note without indicating she was signing solely in a corporate capacity.

Following a successful trial for breach of contract regarding a real estate joint venture, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had made a formal offer to settle that was lower than the trial judgment.

Applying Rule 49.10, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found the claimed hours and rates reasonable and ordered the defendant to pay $45,757.27 in costs.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent law firm for unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred regarding service of the claim, full and frank disclosure, and the application of the test for setting aside default judgments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that service was properly effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the appellants failed to establish a plausible excuse for not defending the claim or an air of reality to any defence on the merits.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a family health team, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision to terminate its funding agreement without cause.

The applicant alleged the termination was made in bad faith to cover up fraud by the applicant's former board of directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the funding agreement was a private law contractual matter not subject to judicial review.

The court applied the Air Canada factors and concluded the decision lacked a sufficient public character.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of bad faith or improper purpose by the Minister.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order denying an adjournment and deeming his motion to oppose a certificate of assessment abandoned.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding his difficulties retaining counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge made no error in denying the adjournment given the appellant's repeated failures to file materials or comply with court orders over an 11-month period.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded on a summary judgment motion in a real estate transaction dispute, sought costs.

The court determined the application of Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which dictates costs consequences for unaccepted offers to settle.

The defendants argued that a non-disparagement clause in the plaintiffs' offer to settle rendered it invalid for Rule 49.10 purposes.

The court found the non-disparagement provision to be clear and not unreasonable, distinguishing it from cases where an offer's terms were vague or uncertain.

As the judgment obtained by the plaintiffs was more favourable than their offer, they were awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $33,039.76, considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of fairness and reasonableness.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the agreement was void due to issues with a power of attorney, misrepresentation of square footage, and failure to provide a survey.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability or mitigation of damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for forfeiture of the deposit and damages for the loss in property value and increased commission fees upon resale.