M. Adilman is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2012 to 2021.

What courts has M. Adilman appeared in?

M. Adilman has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has M. Adilman handled?

M. Adilman has 3 cases on record from 2012 to 2021.

What judges has M. Adilman appeared before?

M. Adilman has most frequently appeared before Justice Barbara McAfee, Justice S. Nicholson, Justice B. McAfee.

M. Adilman | Lawyer

3 total

Learmont Roofing v. Learmont Construction et al., 2021 ONSC 5387

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought directions and a timetable for a summary judgment motion regarding an unpaid $138,134.33 instalment on a commercial roofing contract.

The defendants sought to amend their counterclaim to allege fraud on unrelated projects and requested further cross-examinations and productions.

The court held that the proposed counterclaim should not delay the summary judgment motion, emphasizing the need for proportionate and expeditious proceedings under Rule 1.04 and Hryniak.

The court directed that the summary judgment motion proceed without further cross-examinations or productions related to the counterclaim.

SCJAug 4, 2021

Respondent Counsel

2284064 Ontario Inc. v. Michael Stewart Shunock, 2017 ONSC 5033

The respondent to an application brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the cross-examination of the applicant's representative.

The underlying application sought a declaration that a first right of refusal was void.

The Master categorized the 20 refused questions into four categories and ordered the applicant to answer 19 of them, finding them relevant to the issues and credibility.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the moving party based on the parties' agreement regarding the threshold of success.

SCJAug 24, 2017

Respondent Counsel

Horgan v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 ONSC 4540

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 24.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action for delay where the plaintiff failed to set the matter down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings.

The court found that pleadings had effectively closed in 1996 but the action was not set down for trial until 2011, resulting in approximately 15 years of delay and nearly 26 years since the underlying events.

The plaintiff’s explanations, including health issues and disputes with former counsel, were insufficient to justify long periods of inactivity.

The court held that the delay was inexcusable and that the passage of time created a presumption of prejudice which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

Given faded memories, unavailable witnesses, and the risk that a fair trial was no longer possible, the action was dismissed for delay.

SCJAug 7, 2012