Sonja Hodis

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interim injunction regarding a family cottage property.

The parties, who are siblings, disputed ownership and use of the property after the defendant changed the locks and excluded the plaintiffs.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim for a constructive or resulting trust based on their financial contributions and historical use.

The court granted the CPL and an interim injunction preserving the status quo, allowing both families exclusive use of separate cottages on the property pending the resolution of the action.

The moving parties, named as estate trustees in the deceased's will, brought a motion to remove a notice of objection filed by the responding party, the deceased's daughter.

The responding party alleged undue influence and unfitness of the trustees but provided no evidentiary basis to support her claims.

The court found that the will was validly executed and that the responding party failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question.

The motion was granted, the notice of objection was removed, and the court directed the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

Following dismissal of a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing an action for delay under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs of the motion.

The successful defendants sought substantial costs, with one defendant relying on an offer to settle to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the applicable principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

While accepting the reasonableness of one defendant’s costs outline, the court found another defendant’s claimed hours excessive.

Taking into account the offer to settle and overall fairness, the court fixed equal costs awards payable by the plaintiffs to each successful defendant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, which involved allegations of improper diversion of corporate funds and an improvident sale of land, had been dormant for an extended period.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the litigation delay, failed to prove inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose due to the passage of time and the expiration of limitation periods.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants, owners of two condominium units, appealed a judgment enforcing a condominium declaration that restricted occupancy to a 'one family residence'.

The appellants had rented their units to multiple unrelated students.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the restriction was valid under the Condominium Act, 1998, and did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The court distinguished land use planning principles from condominium governance and upheld the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant unit owner rented his condominium units to students, prompting the respondent condominium corporation to seek a compliance order enforcing a 'one family residence' declaration.

The appellant moved to stay the application, arguing the Condominium Act mandated mediation and arbitration.

The motion judge dismissed the stay, noting the dispute involved tenants who were not subject to arbitration, and splitting the proceedings would be unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under the Arbitration Act and Courts of Justice Act to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellants appealed a judgment that awarded the respondents a declaration of trespass, general damages, punitive damages, and costs following a property line dispute over a fence.

The application judge had decided the matter under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure despite conflicting affidavit evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that Rule 14.05(3) is not available for the resolution of general and punitive damage claims where material facts are in dispute.

The court set aside the damages and costs awards and directed a trial of an issue regarding the respondents' entitlement to damages.