V. Luchko

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay and discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The action, commenced in 2014, arose from an alleged oral trust agreement and wrongful eviction.

The original plaintiff lost capacity and passed away during a lengthy period of inactivity, and her evidence was never preserved.

The court found the delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and highly prejudicial, as a fair trial was no longer possible without the deceased plaintiff's direct evidence.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the certificates of pending litigation were discharged.

The plaintiff, a former commissioned travel agent, brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to allege a partnership, and for further and better affidavits of documents.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for further and better affidavits of documents from the plaintiff.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The court also ordered both parties to produce various financial, banking, and sales records relevant to the issues of the relationship's nature, mitigation, and alleged fraud, resulting in divided success.

In a construction lien action arising from residential renovation work, the court held that an oral time-and-materials contract existed between the plaintiff contractor and one defendant owner, notwithstanding confusion about whether a site foreman was the true contracting party.

Applying an objective approach to contract formation, the court found the agreed pricing was based on actual hourly labour rates plus HST, with any blended-rate adjustment contingent on the job going well, which did not occur.

The plaintiff proved labour and material costs totalling $29,540.71, of which $20,527.00 had been paid, leaving $9,013.71 outstanding.

No WSIB amount, profit, or overhead was allowed, and the owners' claim for set-off for deficiencies and completion costs failed.

The court further held that, if no contract existed, the same amount would have been recoverable in quantum meruit.

On an early family law motion brought weeks after separation, the moving party sought sole custody, primary residence, and tightly restricted supervised access based on escalating abuse allegations.

The court found the evidentiary presentation atypical and concerning, rejected or discounted several professional letters for irrelevance or non-compliance with the expert evidence rule, and emphasized the obligation of each parent to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent.

The court concluded the moving party’s post-separation conduct was not aligned with the younger child’s best interests, particularly given the disruption of the father-child and sibling relationships.

A temporary parenting regime was imposed requiring the child to reside first with the father for a defined period, then transition into an alternating schedule, with communication protocols and continuing mutual restraining terms.