Louis-Pierre Grégoire

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing and a timetable order to set the action down for trial.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

The underlying action was a subrogated claim by TD Insurance for foundation damage to the plaintiff's home, allegedly caused by construction at the Chinese embassy.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the action for delay, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to lack of transparency, failure to obtain a confidentiality order, inappropriate venue, and remediation work done without notice to the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis for PCL and fixed amounts for the other parties.

The plaintiffs brought an action seeking declarations that the defendant, Ashcroft Homes – Eastboro Inc., was not entitled to terminate their agreements of purchase and sale for residential homes.

The plaintiffs argued that the early termination condition (Condition 2 of Schedule U) was contrary to the Tarion Addendum, was invoked untimely, or that Ashcroft breached its obligation to take commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The court found that Condition 2 was consistent with the Tarion Addendum, Ashcroft terminated the agreements in a timely manner, and Ashcroft did take all commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The action was dismissed.

This ruling addresses two mid-trial motions: one by the defendant, Ashcroft Homes – Eastboro Inc., for leave to introduce information related to late-delivered undertakings, and another by the plaintiffs for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The court granted Ashcroft's motion, finding a reasonable explanation for the delay and that any prejudice to the plaintiffs could be compensated by an adjournment and costs.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their statement of claim, including a proposed amendment regarding non-compliance with Schedule "A" of the agreements, determining it did not introduce a new cause of action and thus no non-compensable prejudice due to limitation periods.

Following a failed motion by the defendants to have their trial costs paid by various litigation loan providers, the loan providers sought their costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs to the loan providers, finding that the defendants' motion raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of a costs award against a litigation loan provider and the requirement for court approval of litigation loan agreements.

Given the novelty of the issue, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

Lexfund Inc. sought summary judgment against multiple defendants, including former clients and the estate of their lawyer, Lucio Anthony Ferro, for repayment of litigation loans.

The loans, designed to finance personal injury actions, were structured with high compound interest and a condition of no repayment if the civil action was unsuccessful.

The defendants argued Lexfund failed to comply with the Consumer Protection Act's disclosure requirements, specifically regarding timely and adequate information provided directly to borrowers.

The court found Lexfund in flagrant breach of the Act, noting that loan documents were signed in blank, completed documents were not sent to borrowers, and loan statements were misleading by showing periodic advances instead of a single lump sum.

Consequently, the court dismissed Lexfund's claim for compound interest, finding actual prejudice to the borrowers.

However, recognizing the borrowers benefited from the loans, the court ordered them to repay the principal with simple interest at 5% per annum.

Judgment was also granted against the Ferro defendants for the cumulative amount owing.

A litigation funding company brought a motion for summary judgment against a personal injury lawyer for repayment of several non‑recourse disbursement loans advanced to finance client litigation.

The central dispute concerned whether the contractual phrase “transfer of the client’s file” required repayment when the lawyer retained outside counsel and physically transferred the file, even though the underlying litigation had not yet resolved.

The court held that interpretation of the contractual language required contextual evidence and credibility findings that could not be properly assessed on a written record.

Applying the “full appreciation” test for summary judgment, the court found triable issues for several loans.

Summary judgment was granted only for loans where personal guarantees removed the non‑recourse limitation and liability was clear.