Michael Prosia

The applicant condominium corporation abandoned its application against the respondent unit owner after the respondent moved out of the building.

The respondent subsequently brought a motion seeking over $200,000 in costs, including moving expenses, foreign legal fees, and compensation for hundreds of hours spent 'thinking' about the case.

The court found the majority of the claimed costs unreasonable and unrecoverable, fixing the respondent's costs for the abandoned application and the costs motion at $1,411.00.

The appellants, operators of a long-term care home, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their defamation action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP motion).

The respondent had posted approximately 100 tweets over three years on anonymous accounts alleging elder abuse and serious wrongdoing at the facility.

The motion judge found the tweets related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made reviewable errors in her section 137.1(4) analysis by failing to properly assess whether the defamation claim had merit and whether the appellants had suffered harm, and by assuming the respondent's expression had value without conducting the necessary preliminary analysis.

The applicant, Vivian Dubrofsky, sought interim injunctive relief under section 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) to restrain her mother, Maryka Weisz, from withdrawing funds from Art Tile Limited except for ordinary course expenses, pending final disposition.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and the applicant met the evidentiary threshold, she failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court ordered that the Westmore Property not be encumbered and that certain trust funds remain in trust, but otherwise dismissed the requested relief.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the reasons of a previous judge from the public record, alleging the previous order was tainted by fraud regarding an affidavit of service for an amended statement of defence.

The court found no evidence of fraud, noting the plaintiff failed to prove he did not receive the document and misinterpreted email delivery receipts.

The court further held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 59.06 to strike another judge's reasons from the public record.

The motion was dismissed with no costs.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1899 sought extraordinary relief, including an order for the respondent, a unit owner, to vacate and sell her unit, due to her persistent disturbing, threatening, intimidating, and harassing behaviour towards residents, staff, and board members.

The respondent had previously been subject to a compliance order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, which she subsequently breached by assaulting a housekeeper.

The court found that the respondent's continued presence posed a significant threat to the health and well-being of residents and, in the absence of any evidence or explanation from the respondent, granted the relief sought, ordering the sale of the unit and payment of full indemnity costs.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a successful application by 2516216 Ontario Ltd. o/a NUMBRS against AbleDocs Inc., where a judgment of $111,680.38 plus prejudgment interest was granted in favour of Numbrs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and thereafter on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $41,494.31.

The respondent argued for a denial or reduction of costs due to the applicant's counsel's aggressive conduct, including threats of personal claims against respondent's counsel.

The court found the applicant's counsel's actions inappropriate but not egregious enough to deny costs, ultimately awarding the applicant the full amount of costs claimed.

The applicant, 2516216 Ontario Ltd. o/a NUMBRS, brought an application for judgment seeking $111,680.38 for outstanding bookkeeping services provided to the respondent, AbleDocs Inc. AbleDocs admitted some amount was owing but disputed the total, alleging overbilling, potential negligence regarding US tax remittances (for which it intended to counterclaim), and that some invoices were statute-barred.

AbleDocs brought a motion to convert the application into an action due to alleged material facts in dispute.

The court dismissed AbleDocs' motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the contractual claim was straightforward, the negligence claim was discrete and could be pursued separately, and the limitation period argument was defeated by a valid tolling agreement and acknowledgement of debt.

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the full amount claimed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for leave to amend her statement of claim seeking Long-Term Disability (LTD) benefits and damages.

The motion judge denied leave, finding the proposed amendments sought to withdraw an admission regarding the timely filing of an LTD benefits application and to add a statute-barred request for relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in concluding the amendments withdrew a factual admission, clarifying that the appellant's factual admission remained, and the amendments merely provided particulars and sought an alternative legal conclusion (relief from forfeiture) arising from the same facts.

The Court also held that the request for relief from forfeiture was not a new, statute-barred claim.

The appeal was allowed, and leave to amend was granted.

The plaintiffs, Steven and Carolyn Nadeau, brought an action for damages after Steven Nadeau was injured by an automatic garage door.

They sued the building owner (Ontario), property manager (CBRE), door installer (Wilcox), garage manager (SP Plus), and maintenance contractor (Haws).

Wilcox, SP Plus, and Haws each brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

The court granted Wilcox's motion, finding no duty of care owed to the plaintiffs and no basis for cross-claims, deeming it a rare case suitable for partial summary judgment.

The motions brought by SP Plus and Haws were dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained regarding their respective duties of care and, for SP Plus, ambiguities in contractual indemnification clauses.