Lia Zweig Boritz

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims as an abuse of process, arguing they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in a New York judgment against one of the defendants.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the undefended counterclaim of the defendant subject to the New York judgment, as it was res judicata.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the counterclaim by the affiliated corporate defendant, finding that granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings at trial, as the issues in the counterclaim were intertwined with the main action against that defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the non-resident plaintiff, CAMS Atlas, LLC.

The plaintiff had obtained a New York default judgment against one of the defendants, Water Exchange, Inc., which was recognized in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued it would be unjust to order security for costs, alleging a complex web of interrelationships among the defendants that should make them all liable for the judgment.

The court declined to pierce the corporate veil at this preliminary stage, finding it would be premature and wrong in law.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $75,000 as security for costs.

The applicant sought declarations that the City of Hamilton was deemed to have consented to a demolition application under the Ontario Heritage Act due to insufficient notice, and orders for the Chief Building Official to process a demolition permit application.

The core issue was whether the City's notice of refusal, sent to a director's residence rather than the corporation's registered office or the address on the second application, constituted sufficient notice.

The court, relying on Supreme Court of Canada precedent, found that Section 67 of the OHA does not provide an exhaustive list of notice methods and that the City had taken a "positive step" to give notice, which was actually received and acted upon by the applicant's sole director.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved allegations of a conspiracy to defame the plaintiff, and the moving parties argued the claims against them were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct test for summary judgment and correctly concluded that the discoverability of the claims was a genuine issue for trial.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance transcending the interests of the parties.

The defendants (Foodfest, Henry Ender, and Sue Ellen Ender) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision that dismissed their summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them on the basis of limitation periods.

The court applied the strict two-part test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

It found no conflicting decisions on matters of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order that transcended the immediate parties' interests.

The motion judge's finding that the discoverability of the conspiracy claims was a genuine issue requiring a trial was upheld.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.