Linda S. Abrams

The plaintiff moved to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to their persistent non-compliance with multiple prior court orders, including payment of costs totaling $4,727.25 and the corporate defendant's failure to retain counsel or seek leave for alternative representation.

The defendants, represented by Jiajun Xu, offered unsubstantiated claims of financial hardship and proposed no remedial steps.

The court issued a final conditional order, granting the motion to strike unless the defendants remitted the outstanding costs and proposed a date for corporate counsel to go on record by August 21, 2020.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel 1346150 Ontario Inc., Sadie Moranis Real Estate Limited, and Bella Levy to comply with their obligations under Rules 30.02 and 30.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by serving affidavits of documents.

The motion, initially heard on February 26, 2020, was adjourned for continuation but further delayed due to the court's suspension of operations owing to COVID-19.

The court addressed the plaintiff's request to conclude the motion, considering health concerns raised by Mr. Moranis (representing the corporations).

The court directed the motion to continue in writing for the corporations, requiring Mr. Moranis to propose a deadline for document service, and set a timeline for Ms. Levy's submissions.

The court also noted that Mr. Moranis could not act as agent for Ms. Levy due to potential conflict of interest.

The defendant moved to set aside a noting in default and default judgment, as well as an order for a writ of possession and a certificate of lien related to unpaid common expenses.

The court found that the defendant failed to prove she did not receive notice of the claim, delayed significantly in bringing the motion, and presented no arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff agreed to a 90-day stay on eviction.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to add Paragon Protection Ltd. as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the apparent expiry of the limitation period.

The court applied discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, finding that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering Paragon's potential liability.

Initial information from the owner's insurer and defendants' pleadings had directed the plaintiffs' focus solely to other parties responsible for winter maintenance.

The court granted leave to amend, noting that Paragon could still raise a limitations defence at trial.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14 to set aside an order by Master McGraw that had previously set aside a 20-year-old default judgment obtained by the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants had failed to provide proper notice to the plaintiff for their motion to set aside the default judgment and had not made full and frank disclosure regarding their knowledge of the original action and the plaintiff's contact information.

Considering additional evidence, the court determined that Master McGraw's order ought not to have been issued.

The plaintiff's motion was granted, and the original default judgment and writ of execution were restored.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, arguing the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario and evinced financial instability.

The plaintiff opposed, relying on its cash and cash equivalents.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets, considering its acknowledged financial instability, lack of commercial activity, an outstanding judgment, and a pending breach of contract claim.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $50,000.00 as security for costs and pay $5,000.00 in costs for the motion.

The defendant 2623559 Ontario Inc. ("262") moved for an order discharging a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and a notice registered against a property it purchased.

The plaintiff, Goyal, opposed the motion, alleging the sale was fraudulent and sought rescission.

The court upheld the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding an interest in land and sufficient "badges of fraud" to justify its maintenance.

The decision applied the Dhunna factors and the holistic equitable test, concluding that the equities favored maintaining the CPL.

The plaintiff, Gary Curtis, brought a motion seeking an order to schedule examinations for discovery.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding a lack of jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

The Master noted that Justice Dow had previously ordered common discoveries and trial for this action and a related action (CV-15-524203), and a Rule 21 motion to strike claims in the related action was pending before Justice Dow.

The Master determined that ordering discoveries would effectively vary a judge's order, which is beyond a Master's jurisdiction, and that the Rule 21 motion should be heard first to streamline the litigation process.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to compel the production of academic, psychoeducational, and treatment records of a plaintiff's sibling for a neuropsychological evaluation concerning causation, specifically genetic vulnerability.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the documents were irrelevant and the expert's need was not properly established.

The court granted the motion, finding the documents relevant and necessary for an informed expert opinion, distinguishing the plaintiffs' cited case, and noting the plaintiffs' own expert acknowledged potential genetic vulnerability.

The defendants brought a motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's action due to outstanding costs awards.

The court stayed the action for six months, allowing the plaintiff time to satisfy the costs or obtain a judicial order varying them.

The court found the plaintiff's financial evidence insufficient but granted a final opportunity before allowing the defendants to renew their motion for dismissal.