Liza C. Sheard

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), brought a motion for summary judgment against American Haulage Inc. (American) for amounts owing under a credit agreement, and against its directors, Harsimran Singh Gill and Lakhwinder Dhindsa, based on personal guarantees.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which was denied due to lack of diligence in cross-examination and prior agreement on the hearing date.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that American was in default of its credit obligations and that Gill and Dhindsa were liable under the new guarantee, despite their claims of not reading or understanding the documents or lacking independent legal advice.

Judgment was granted in favour of RBC against all defendants.

The applicant, common-law spouse of the deceased, sought an additional $1 million from the estate based on an alleged secret trust and an order for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The applicant had already received $1 million from the will and cohabitation agreement.

The court dismissed the secret trust claim, finding no clear intention, communication, or acceptance of a trust beyond the existing testamentary provisions.

The dependant support claim was also dismissed, as the court found the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicant, considering her financial independence under the cohabitation agreement, the deceased's lifetime support, and the applicant's current assets, including an imputed $250,000 gift she made to her daughter.

The Taha Defendants moved to set aside a noting in default and dismiss the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment.

The court found the Taha Defendants' evidence admissible despite being hearsay based on context.

Applying the detailed test for setting aside a noting in default from *Trayanov v. Icetrading Inc.*, the court concluded that the Taha Defendants met the onus, considering the short delay, reasons for delay (financial), complexity of the claim, and arguable defence.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for security for costs, finding it would likely bar the defendants from defending and would unjustly prefer the plaintiffs over existing judgment creditors.

The noting in default was set aside on terms that the Taha Defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs and serve their statement of defence within strict timelines.

The applicant, Muhammad Iqbal Khan, sought injunctive relief and other orders related to the estate of his deceased former spouse.

The respondent, Muhammad Ali Khan, the estate trustee, brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant and to convert the application to an action.

The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs, finding the applicant failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success on his claims, and converted the application to an action.

The court also granted a limited preservation order for the deceased's former residence but dismissed most of the applicant's requested injunctive relief, including an accounting.

Costs for a previous motion were awarded to the respondent, while costs for the current injunctive relief motion were reserved.

The applicant sought a detention review, arguing material changes in circumstances and errors by prior courts regarding his release plan and Gladue factors.

The court dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances, upholding the prior decisions that continued detention was justified on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the applicant's history of re-offending, particularly driving while disqualified, and the proposed release plan's inability to mitigate public safety risk.

The court also addressed the application of Gladue factors, concluding that while systemic factors were present, the proposed plan did not sufficiently address the risk to public safety.

The plaintiff, an internationally trained physician employed by a pain management clinic, was terminated after a complaint involving him was made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, and the defendant asserted termination for cause based on evidence from the CPSO.

The plaintiff moved to strike portions of the statement of defence, arguing they contravened the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA).

The court partially granted the motion, striking references to evidence provided by the CPSO, as such documents are inadmissible in civil proceedings under s. 36(3) of the RHPA.

However, the court allowed the defendant leave to amend its defence.

Costs were fixed due to mixed success.

The plaintiffs, Li Ma, Yumei Zhang, and Homeland Trading Ltd., brought an action against the Township of Wainfleet seeking general and punitive damages, and declarations that a municipal bylaw (Bylaw No. 028-2013) and a subsequent order to destroy their orchard were void.

The bylaw designated diseased fruit trees as "local weeds" under the Weed Control Act.

The plaintiffs alleged the bylaw was passed in bad faith, improperly targeted them, and violated their natural justice rights.

The court dismissed Homeland Trading Ltd.'s claim for lack of standing and failure to plead pecuniary loss.

For Li Ma and Yumei Zhang, the court found the bylaw valid, within the Township's statutory authority, and not passed in bad faith or targeting the plaintiffs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had ample notice and opportunity to appeal the order through the statutory appeal route, which they failed to utilize.

Consequently, all claims for damages and declarations were dismissed.

The court determined costs for two summary judgment motions.

Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. successfully obtained judgment against 4342 Queen St Niagara Holdings Inc. for unpaid invoices, while its claim against Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP was dismissed as Avison was found to be Queen's agent.

Avison Young also successfully obtained indemnification from 4342 Queen St Niagara Holdings Inc. for its legal costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Arcamm against Queen, partial indemnity costs to Avison against Queen (for defending Arcamm's claim via a Sanderson Order), and full indemnity costs to Avison against Queen (for its successful indemnification claim).

The decision emphasized Queen's conduct in unnecessarily complicating the proceedings and refusing to admit facts.

The Respondent father (JHS) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final orders regarding decision-making, child residence, and parenting time for the parties' eight-year-old child.

The Applicant mother (JLD) opposed the motion and was self-represented.

The court applied Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Hryniak v. Mauldin test, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court thoroughly considered the child's best interests under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, including the history of family violence, the child's needs for stability and education, the nature of parental relationships, and each parent's willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent.

The court found that JLD was unable to meet the child's educational and physical needs and was unwilling to support the child's relationship with JHS.

Consequently, JHS's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing JLD's application, and awarding JHS sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the child, along with a detailed parenting schedule.

The plaintiffs, Renee and Peter Wilson, sued the defendant, Ryan David Hill (d.b.a.

Crown Hill Builders), for the return of a $50,000 cash deposit paid for home renovations that were never performed.

The defendant denied receiving the money.

The case hinged on credibility.

The court found the plaintiffs' evidence, corroborated by text messages, bank records, a police report, and their son's testimony, to be credible.

The defendant's evidence was deemed not credible, and an adverse inference was drawn from his failure to produce documents.

The court concluded that the defendant engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation, taking the deposit with no intention of performing the work, and then disappearing.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for the principal amount of $50,000 plus pre-judgment interest, with costs to be determined.

This is a costs decision following a motion to appoint a litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. The plaintiffs, Kathy Ann Di Silvestro and Kandis Developments Limited, successfully moved to appoint an independent litigation guardian (Bryan Gelman) for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., despite opposition from the defendants Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, who proposed themselves or an accountant with prior involvement.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $80,000 in costs, with 50% to be paid by Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. and the other 50% jointly and severally by Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, due to their pursuit of inappropriate LG candidates despite clear conflicts of interest.

This decision concerns a summary judgment motion brought by Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP (Avison) against 4342 Queen St Niagara Holdings Inc. (Queen) on Avison's crossclaim for indemnification.

Avison, as property manager for Queen, had retained Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. to restore power to Queen's property after an electrical failure.

Arcamm was not paid and sued both Avison and Queen.

In a prior decision, Queen was found liable to Arcamm, but Avison was not.

Avison sought indemnification from Queen under their Real Estate Management Services Agreement (REMSA).

Queen argued that the indemnity provisions did not apply due to lack of a written contract with Arcamm and alleged Avison's gross negligence.

The court found that Avison had "executed" a contract with Arcamm in the ordinary sense, triggering Queen's indemnity obligations under sections 4.11 and 5.4 of the REMSA.

The court rejected Queen's argument that section 11.1 (gross negligence exception) applied to Arcamm's debt claim, finding it pertained to different circumstances.

Queen's crossclaim against Avison was dismissed, and Avison's motion for summary judgment on its crossclaim for indemnification was granted, including past and future legal costs.

Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. brought a summary judgment motion against Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP and 4342 Queen St Niagara Holdings Inc. for unpaid invoices related to emergency electrical repairs and equipment replacement at a commercial property.

The court granted summary judgment against 4342 Queen St Niagara Holdings Inc. (Queen), finding it liable as the owner under the Construction Act and in contract for the services and materials provided.

The court dismissed the claim against Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP (Avison), concluding that Avison acted solely as Queen's agent and was not an "owner" under the Act, nor liable in contract.

The court also addressed the applicability of prompt payment provisions, finding Arcamm's invoices were not "proper invoices" under the Act, and clarified that the decision on Arcamm's invoices would not prejudice related subrogated claims regarding transformer damage.

The applicant, CT, brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude Facebook messages from evidence in his sexual offence trial.

He argued the messages were seized without a warrant, breaching his s. 8 Charter rights, and that their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found that the police conduct did not constitute a search or seizure engaging s. 8, as the complainant voluntarily provided the messages.

Furthermore, the court held that CT did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the messages, particularly given the exploitative nature of the adult-child relationship.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to appoint an independent litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., who was deemed incapable of managing his property and instructing counsel.

The defendants, including Tony Sr.'s daughter Laura, opposed, arguing Laura should remain as LG based on a Power of Attorney and that the plaintiffs needed to show misconduct.

The court found that Laura and Matthew had conflicts of interest due to allegations of undue influence over their parents' business and estate plans.

The court dismissed Laura's claim that her prior self-appointment as LG shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to prove misconduct.

Applying the 'best interests test' and 'indifference' principle from Gronnerud, the court ruled that neither Laura, Matthew, nor a family-connected accountant (Mr. Mastroluisi) were suitable due to potential conflicts.

The court appointed Bryan Gelman, an independent insolvency trustee, as the litigation guardian for Tony Sr., subject to approval of terms.

This decision addresses costs and other amounts payable following a long-standing property dispute.

The plaintiff, Dino Lepre, sought costs for a dismissed contempt motion brought by the defendant, Laurie Ann Hynds, and for a partition application.

The court fixed Mr. Lepre's costs for the contempt motion and awarded him costs for the partition application, noting his success on key issues and reasonable settlement efforts.

The court also determined the amounts payable by Ms. Hynds to Mr. Lepre for property taxes and severance costs, with a credit for land transferred to Mr. Lepre.

This is a costs decision following a successful application by Sukhvinder Kang (Applicant) against Resham Dhillon (Respondent) for the sale of a property.

Kang sought partial indemnity costs of $24,202.65.

The court found that Dhillon's evidence in the main application was inconsistent and lacked credibility, and that his denial of previously acknowledged facts regarding property ownership unnecessarily increased Kang's litigation costs.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01 and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that the costs sought by Kang were fair and reasonable given the circumstances and Dhillon's conduct.

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion by GFL Environmental Inc. against Peras Construction Inc. for unpaid invoices.

GFL sought costs based on a Rule 49 offer, which entitled them to substantial indemnity costs from the offer date.

The court awarded GFL costs of $35,834.15, finding that while GFL was entitled to substantial indemnity, the claimed hourly rates and total time spent were excessive and unreasonable, despite Peras's conduct in raising abandoned arguments.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a property, asserting 50% beneficial ownership despite the respondent holding sole legal title.

The respondent denied beneficial ownership and raised limitation period defenses.

The court found the applicant to be a 50% beneficial owner based on evidence including a UK consent order from divorce proceedings and the respondent's own acknowledgments.

The court dismissed the limitation period defenses, finding the cause of action accrued when the respondent first refused to cooperate in the sale after a lien was discharged.

The court ordered the property's sale and an accounting of rents, but dismissed the applicant's claim to offset amounts owed under the UK consent order, citing lack of jurisdiction and delay.

This decision addresses the costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff TCA's claim against the defendant Art Gallery of Hamilton (AGH) after a five-day trial.

The AGH, as the successful party, sought partial indemnity costs of $94,152.91.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing for a denial or significant reduction of costs due to proportionality concerns, excessive fees, and "over-lawyering" by the AGH's counsel.

The court found the AGH's claimed fees to be excessive and disproportionately high given the modest nature and complexity of the dispute, and that the involvement of multiple lawyers in nearly every step was unreasonable.

The court fixed the AGH's costs at $62,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, specifically excluding costs for a contested motion regarding undertakings.