Leon Li

The plaintiff, Tianyu Li, brought a motion for summary judgment in an oppression action under the Ontario and Canada Business Corporations Acts, seeking $760,000 against the defendants, who were involved in the operation and sale of two supermarkets.

The court found that there were significant factual disputes, a voluminous record, and a lack of expert evidence, making the matter unsuitable for summary judgment.

The motion was dismissed and the action, along with the defendants’ counterclaim, was ordered to proceed to trial.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by Arista Homes (Boxgrove Village) Inc. for forfeiture of a deposit after a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant, Ding Ding, sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the test for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit proportionate and no unconscionability.

The motion was granted and the deposit forfeited to Arista.

This costs endorsement follows an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, a former employee, who had made damaging and unsubstantiated allegations against the plaintiff, his former employer.

The court found the defendant's campaign of correspondence to be extortionate and awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in costs, exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's damages award arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for a new home, arguing that the cost of certain upgrades should have been included.

The respondent cross-appealed on the issues of mitigation and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of the upgrades as a deposit.

The Court also dismissed the cross-appeal on mitigation.

However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal on costs, finding that the trial judge erred by refusing to consider the costs consequences of Rule 76.13.

Because the appellant recovered less than $100,000 and it was unreasonable to continue the action under the ordinary procedure, the appellant was denied its costs of the action.

This motion addressed whether a party (Yan Jun Li) could examine other parties (Jiapeng Zhou and Lihui Gu) who had not sworn affidavits in support of a consolidation motion.

The court clarified that the right to examine a witness under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not automatic and requires demonstrating that the evidence sought is relevant, obtainable from the witness, and necessary for the motion.

The court found that the questions Li sought to ask, pertaining to common questions of fact or law or transactional nexus for consolidation, were matters of legal argument based on pleadings, not factual evidence from the parties.

Consequently, the Notices of Examination served on Jiapeng Zhou and Lihui Gu were quashed.

The court also granted an indulgence to Li's counsel to cross-examine Caitlyn Reid, despite previous non-compliance with the timetable.

Costs were awarded to Zhou and Gu.

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs opposed certain amendments, arguing they constituted a withdrawal of admissions regarding Mr. Cui's employment by the plaintiff corporations.

The court found that the original pleading, drafted by a self-represented litigant, did not contain unambiguous, deliberate, and intentional admissions.

Even if admissions were withdrawn, the court determined that the three-part test for withdrawal was met, particularly given the reasonable explanation provided (self-representation and lack of legal training).

The motion to amend was granted, with the plaintiffs awarded $3,500 in costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff appealed a decision of an Associate Justice refusing to grant a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a residential property.

The plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the defaulting mortgagor, argued the Associate Justice breached natural justice by relying on a post-hearing Google search and making observations about building permits without allowing submissions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the grounds of appeal were meritorious, they were not material.

The CPL could not stay the enforcement rights of the prior-ranking mortgagee, who had commenced power of sale proceedings before the agreement was signed.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a residential property after the defendant vendor failed to close the transaction due to an inability to discharge two mortgages.

The mortgages were subsequently assigned to a third party who opposed the CPL and sought to sell the property under power of sale.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the balance of equities under the Dhunna factors did not favour granting the CPL.

The plaintiff failed to prove the property was unique, damages were an adequate remedy, and the third-party mortgagee would suffer greater prejudice if the CPL were granted.

The applicant vendor and respondent purchaser entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a luxury new build home.

The purchaser failed to close, claiming the vendor made misrepresentations and the contract was unconscionable.

The vendor terminated the agreement and retained the purchaser's deposits totaling over $490,000.

The court found that the purchaser repudiated the agreement and that the vendor was not required to tender closing documents or conduct a pre-delivery inspection given the repudiation.

The court held the vendor was entitled to retain the deposits, finding no unconscionability, and directed the issue of the vendor's further damages to trial.

Poteck Power Corp. brought a motion for summary judgment to collect a 30% contingent fee from 2465855 Ontario Ltd. for identifying and securing over $1.2 million in electricity rebates from Toronto Hydro.

The defendant argued the contract did not apply to these rebates, which arose from an existing program rather than "billing errors," and alleged the plaintiff breached its duty of good faith.

The court found the contract, when read in its commercial context, clearly applied to the rebates discovered by the plaintiff.

The defendant's arguments regarding contract interpretation, ambiguity, and breach of good faith were rejected, with the court noting the defendant's evidence lacked credibility and was largely irrelevant to the contract's terms.

The motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle and the plaintiff's allegations of fraud.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the offer to settle was close to an offer to capitulate and the plaintiff's position was not entirely spurious.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,567.10.

The sellers brought a motion for summary judgment after the buyer failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The buyer argued she was entitled to terminate the agreement because the lot dimensions were materially misstated and the sellers failed to provide a survey.

The court found that the minor discrepancy in lot size due to a curved street was not a material misrepresentation and that a digital copy of the survey had been provided.

The court granted summary judgment to the sellers, awarding damages for the difference in the resale price and associated mortgage penalties.