Lorne Levine

The defendants by counterclaim brought a motion for partial summary judgment on a counterclaim arising from a complex business relationship involving a share purchase agreement and related transactions.

The defendants argued the counterclaim was statute-barred and that there was no evidence establishing liability.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period due to the ongoing interrelated dealings between the parties that continued into 2019.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against four individual defendants but allowed the counterclaim to proceed against the remaining corporate defendants, finding genuine issues requiring trial regarding commissions owed and the interrelated nature of the business relationships.

The defendant, Mark Andre Dajka, moved to dismiss a six-year-old action for delay under rules 24.01(1)(c) and 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, there was insufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendant’s ability to have a fair trial.

The motion to dismiss was therefore denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff by counterclaim discontinued its action against a defendant by counterclaim, who had been named solely because he appeared as a director in government records.

The released defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the defendant was entitled to costs for his continued participation, the plaintiff by counterclaim was not entirely at fault for relying on the government records.

Costs were awarded to the released defendant fixed at $8,300 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Appellant Mother appealed a child protection order that placed her child in the Father's custody with supervised access for the Mother.

The Mother alleged denial of procedural fairness, errors in admitting child's hearsay statements, allowing an expert to testify beyond his expertise, and an erroneous discretionary access order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, proper handling of child's statements, appropriate expert testimony, and valid discretionary access order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Following a family law trial, the parties were unable to agree on costs, the reconciliation of interim orders, or the release of trust funds.

The court reconciled various advance payments and line of credit withdrawals, crediting them against the respondent's substantial equalization debt.

Due to the respondent's refusal to provide a direction to the real estate lawyer, the court ordered the endorsement to serve as sufficient direction to release the remaining trust funds to the applicant.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $52,000 in costs, noting the respondent's persistent non-disclosure and obstructionist behaviour.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's repudiation of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The defendant raised several defenses, including failure to tender, false bidding war, unjust enrichment, and failure to mitigate damages, and requested a stay of execution pending a third-party claim against her real estate agent.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, dismissing all defenses, and refusing to stay the judgment.

The applicant brought a family law proceeding which the respondent argued was statute-barred under s. 7(3)(b) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent claimed the parties separated in 2001, while the applicant claimed they separated in 2009.

The court examined the parties' living arrangements, travel, and communications to determine when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The court found the parties continued to cohabit until June 30, 2007, meaning the applicant's 2010 proceeding was commenced well within the six-year limitation period.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

At a house party, after the victim attacked him, the defendant repeatedly punched the victim in the head, causing a broken orbital bone requiring plastic surgery and resulting in hospitalization by air ambulance.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected both positions and imposed a four-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first two months, followed by a curfew for two months, and one year of probation.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate to balance denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, particularly given the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, and positive personal circumstances.

Following settlement of a family law dispute through comprehensive minutes of settlement, the court was asked to determine entitlement and quantum of costs.

The court reviewed the parties’ settlement offers, expert reports, litigation conduct, and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent spouse had acted in person for part of the proceeding but incurred substantial legal and expert costs earlier in the litigation.

The court found that the applicant spouse had been unreasonable in negotiations, caused delay, and that the final settlement was closer to the respondent’s positions.

The respondent was therefore entitled to substantial costs, including portions of expert fees, transcript expenses, arbitration-related costs, and partial indemnity for legal fees.

Following a trial in a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff recovered approximately 33% of its claim, the parties made written submissions on costs and pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for no costs, asserting the matter should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The Master confirmed the preliminary ruling of no order as to costs due to divided success, finding that the plaintiff could not have transferred the action to Small Claims Court because of the defendant's $50,000 counterclaim.

The Master also confirmed the pre-judgment interest rate at the presumptive statutory rate of 3.3%.