Timothy Duggan

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim, arguing it duplicated an existing application the defendants had filed at the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding an alleged bad faith eviction.

The court found that the counterclaim was an abuse of process as it arose from the same factual matrix and sought the same relief as the tribunal application.

The counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff City of Saskatoon was defrauded of over $1 million when it was tricked into depositing a payment meant for a contractor into a fraudulent bank account.

The funds were dispersed by the account operator to various individuals.

The City traced and froze the funds.

On a motion to determine entitlement to the remaining frozen funds, the respondents claimed to be innocent victims who paid valuable consideration.

The court found the respondents failed to provide evidence that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice or that they had innocently changed their position.

The court ordered the remaining funds returned to the City.

The applicant unit owners brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation regarding a water leak originating from their bathroom and alleging oppressive conduct.

The court found that the leak originated from an overflow pipe within the boundaries of the applicants' unit, making it their responsibility to repair, not the corporation's.

The court also dismissed the oppression claims, finding that the corporation's actions in investigating the leak, enforcing rules, and managing expenses were reasonable and did not constitute coercive or unfairly prejudicial conduct.

The defendants in a defamation action brought a motion to dismiss the proceeding under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, and a motion to strike portions of the statement of claim.

The defamation claim arose from anonymous letters distributed to condominium residents alleging corruption by the plaintiffs, who were current or former board members.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the defendants could not rely on the provision while denying they made the statements, and that in any event, condominium board politics do not constitute a matter of public interest.

The court granted the motion to strike in part, removing paragraphs from the statement of claim that were irrelevant and vexatious.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal from an arbitrator's ruling, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting that the applicant's appeal was largely without merit, caused unnecessary delay, and that the respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $18,008.88.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant previously declared a vexatious litigant in three separate orders, sought leave to bring a motion to reinstate his appeals after they were dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the moving party failed to perfect the appeals despite being capable of filing voluminous materials.

The court further held that the underlying appeals were entirely devoid of merit and that the interests of justice would not be served by permitting the matter to proceed.

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a supplementary notice of appeal and for case management directions.

The moving party had improperly combined appeals of three vexatious litigant declarations and a dismissed application into a single notice of appeal without obtaining the required leave for the application appeal.

The Court of Appeal struck the application appeal without prejudice for failing to obtain leave under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

However, recognizing the moving party's clear intention to appeal the vexatious litigant declarations, the Court granted an extension of time to file separate notices of appeal for those orders.

The request for case management was dismissed.

The appellant, a unit owner and former director of the respondent condominium corporation, appealed a costs order made against him.

The application judge had ordered the appellant to pay $45,000 in costs but failed to clearly determine whether the appellant had acted in bad faith or was merely negligent, which was critical to determining his entitlement to indemnification under the condominium's by-laws.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the costs order, and remitted the matter to the application judge to clarify the findings and reassess the costs.

The appellant condominium corporation terminated its management agreement with the respondent for cause.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract, but the trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondent's conduct cumulatively amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

The Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, holding the reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the trial judgment, finding the Divisional Court erred by failing to read the reasons in the context of the trial record and the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The self-represented moving party brought a second motion within six months seeking to lift a stay of proceedings previously imposed pending completion of a related small claims action and payment of outstanding costs.

The court held that the prior costs orders, including those from the small claims action and earlier motions, were a threshold condition to any further consideration of lifting the stay.

The motion was characterized as an impermissible serial attempt to re-litigate issues already decided rather than a timely appeal or proper motion to set aside the earlier orders.

The motion was dismissed, the moving party's request for his own costs was rejected, and aggregate costs of $2,300 were awarded to the responding parties.