4 total
Motion to set aside order for security for costs dismissed; no error in motion judge's discretion.
The moving parties sought a panel review to set aside a motion judge's order requiring them to pay security for costs within 30 days, failing which their appeal would be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found no legal error or misapprehension of material evidence in the motion judge's discretionary decision, agreeing that the appeal lacked merit and the justice of the case supported the order.
The motion to set aside the order, and an alternative request for an extension of time to post security, were dismissed.
Security for costs ordered on appeal where appellants had low prospect of success and unlikely to pay.
The respondents and third parties brought a motion for security for costs against the appellants pending an appeal of a summary judgment order in a mortgage enforcement action.
The motion judge found that the appeal had a low prospect of success and that the appellants were unlikely to pay a costs award, satisfying the 'other good reason' requirement under Rule 61.06(1)(c).
The court ordered the appellants to post security for costs, though the amount for the plaintiff was reduced as a party should not have to give security simply to defend an order obtained below.
The court granted summary judgment to enforce a collateral mortgage following the borrower's default.
The court granted summary judgment in favour of World Financial Solutions Inc. for possession and sale of a Toronto property under a collateral mortgage, dismissing the defences, counterclaim, and third party claims of 2573138 Ontario Ltd. and Marguerite Alfred.
The court found the mortgage was in default, rejected arguments of co-venturer status, conspiracy, and improper sale, and ordered a reference for accounting of sale proceeds.
The decision clarifies the application of summary judgment principles in mortgage enforcement and the limits of technical and equitable defences.
Action for intrusion upon seclusion and harassment dismissed; unauthorized police database searches deemed a minimal privacy breach.
The plaintiff brought an action against a police officer and the police services board for intrusion upon seclusion, harassment, and bullying.
The officer, who was the ex-spouse of the plaintiff's boyfriend, had conducted brief, unauthorized searches of the plaintiff's name in a police database for personal reasons.
The court dismissed the intrusion upon seclusion claim, finding the searches were a minimal invasion of privacy that a reasonable person would not consider highly offensive.
The court also dismissed the harassment claims, concluding the officer's communications were not outrageous or threatening, and found no basis for vicarious liability against the police services board.
