Tamara Markovic

The Gilmans moved to dismiss a construction lien action and a civil counterclaim brought by 2675076 Ontario Inc. and Cesare Fazari, citing persistent non-compliance with court orders and undertakings regarding documentation of alleged outstanding construction costs.

The court found that 2675076 Ontario Inc. failed to diligently advance the construction lien action as required by the Construction Act.

Consequently, the construction lien was vacated, and the Construction Lien Action was dismissed.

While acknowledging the persistent non-compliance, the court, applying Rule 60.12, granted 2675076 Ontario Inc. and Mr. Fazari one final 30-day opportunity to fulfill outstanding undertakings for the Civil Counterclaim, failing which it would also be dismissed.

The appellant, Junxia Yu, appealed four orders from a Case Management Master concerning security for costs, leave to amend a statement of defence to add a limitation period, refusal to order production of unredacted diary entries and a prior lawyer's file, and refusal to strike affidavits.

The primary ground of appeal was an alleged violation of natural justice.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Associate Justice's rulings.

It held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the redacted documents were relevant or that their non-production violated natural justice.

The court also found no bad faith in the respondents' motion for security for costs, noting the appellant's failure to provide evidence of impecuniosity.

The argument that security for costs was akin to partial summary judgment, especially given a related counterclaim, was also rejected.

The Court of Appeal heard two appeals concerning defamation actions dismissed under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP legislation).

The motion judge had dismissed the actions, finding no valid defence in one case and a potentially valid defence in the other, and in both cases, the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, upholding the dismissal of the defamation actions.

However, it allowed the cross-appeals on costs, finding that the motion judge erred in not awarding full indemnity costs to the successful defendants, as the actions bore the hallmarks of SLAPP lawsuits.

The parties, equal shareholders in a real estate business, underwent a court-ordered sales process overseen by a Sales Officer.

The moving party brought a motion for the distribution of $10 million from the net proceeds of the sale.

The responding party opposed, arguing the funds should be frozen until trial to secure his claims.

The court held that the prior Appointment Order did not function as a Mareva injunction and there was no basis to freeze the funds.

However, due to a lack of evidence regarding potential corporate tax liabilities, the court approved a reduced distribution of $8 million, split equally between the parties.

The defendants brought a motion to permit a former co-defendant, the plaintiff's ex-husband, to attend the plaintiff's examination for discovery as an agent for the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to bar him from attending, arguing she was intimidated by him.

The court held that the former co-defendant had no inherent right to attend the examination.

However, exercising its discretion, the court granted him leave to observe the examination via closed-circuit video to assist the defendants' counsel, balancing the defendants' need for his factual knowledge with the plaintiff's concerns.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for the production of documents related to the defendant's recruitment process for a Co-Head of M&A. The plaintiff alleged the hiring of the new Co-Head amounted to a demotion and constructive dismissal.

The court found the recruitment documents relevant to the plaintiff's allegations but limited production to documents concerning the successful candidate and one other top candidate to balance relevance with the privacy interests of non-parties and the principle of proportionality.

The Defendants/Appellants appealed a Master's decision that dismissed their motion to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and confirmed a $600,000 payment into court as security.

The appeal focused on the Plaintiffs/Respondents' counsel's failure to disclose to the Master that opposing counsel had requested notice of the ex parte CPL motion.

The court found that this non-disclosure was a material fact that adversely impacted the Master's ruling, leading to a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was allowed, the CPL discharged, the security fund released to the Appellants, and substantial indemnity costs awarded against the Respondents.