Quinn Ryan Hanna

The court voided six promissory notes and struck out related mortgages registered by the plaintiffs against the defendants' properties, finding that the notes were materially altered without consent, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court also declined to grant equitable mortgages or certificates of pending litigation, citing the plaintiffs' inequitable conduct and failure to meet statutory tests.

The decision addresses issues of forged notes, after-acquired property, corporate personality, and the application of the Family Law Act to matrimonial homes.

This case involves two applications concerning a commercial tenancy dispute.

The applicants, Northern Fabco Ltd., sought a declaration that they are the rightful tenant of a commercial property, arguing that the respondent landlord, 2206709 Ontario Inc., unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of a lease.

The court found that the landlord's refusal to consent was unreasonable, particularly because no valid reasons were provided at the time of refusal, and the refusal appeared to be driven by a collateral purpose to secure a new tenancy agreement.

This case involves appeals from a Master's decision regarding procedural motions in a breach of contract action related to a tender process.

Metrolinx, Exclusive Advertising Inc., and non-party IMA Outdoor Inc. all appealed various aspects.

The court allowed Metrolinx's appeal, dismissing those of Exclusive and IMA.

Key issues included the amendment of pleadings to allege collusion, the relevance of post-Contract B events to discovery and production, and the examination of a non-party representative.

The court affirmed that collusion must be properly pleaded to open up Contract B events for discovery and upheld the Master's finding of a constructive refusal to obtain information as a basis for ordering a non-party examination.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order compelling the defendant and a related witness to re-attend cross‑examinations on affidavits and answer outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The issues arose in the context of a pending motion by the defendant to set aside a default judgment entered against him for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court held that the disputed questions and requested documents, including corporate records, financial statements, tax returns, and records relating to a successor company, were relevant to determining whether the defendant had a meritorious defence and whether he exercised control over the corporate defendant.

The court ordered the defendant and witness to re-attend to answer the questions and produce documents.

Costs were awarded against the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.