Jeremy Lum-Danson

The appellants appealed a Master's order that varied a previous 'last chance' order requiring the respondent to post security for costs.

The previous order stated that if the respondent failed to post security by a specific deadline, the action would be dismissed.

The respondent failed to comply, but the Master subsequently issued a new order extending the deadline and increasing the security amount.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master was functus officio once the original order was issued, entered, and breached, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The Master therefore had no jurisdiction to vary the order or grant a stay.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to amend its statement of claim against the defendant tenant, its corporate parent, and individual directors following the abandonment of a commercial lease.

The proposed amendments sought to pierce the corporate veil and allege that the corporate parent and individuals were the alter ego of the tenant.

The court denied the amendments relating to piercing the corporate veil, finding they lacked the requisite particulars and were mere 'window dressing' attempting to turn a breach of contract into a fraud claim.

However, the court allowed an amendment adding a claim under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, noting that its viability should not be determined at this preliminary stage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike out three paragraphs of the defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The underlying action involved a dispute over a joint real estate venture and a Memorandum of Understanding.

The court declined to strike two paragraphs, finding them relevant to the issues of equity split and unconscionability.

However, the court struck out one paragraph alleging an anonymous threatening phone call, as it did not allege the call was made by the plaintiffs and was included solely to cast them in a bad light.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay an unpaid invoice of $11,523 to the respondent.

The parties had a distribution agreement that the respondent terminated after the appellant refused to pay the invoice.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the agreement, which required payment for products already delivered regardless of termination.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's counter-claim, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove its damages.

The appeal was dismissed.