Marc David Dunn Whiteley

The Plaintiffs moved for answers to undertakings and refusals, leave to amend their Statement of Claim, and a timetable.

The Defendants cross-moved for answers to refusals, access to the Plaintiffs' former solicitor's file, and leave to examine the solicitor, arguing waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The court granted the Plaintiffs' request to amend their Statement of Claim and ordered various undertakings and refusals to be answered by both parties.

However, the court denied the Defendants' request for the solicitor's entire file and examination, finding that privilege was waived only for the specific legal letter disclosed, not the underlying advice or file.

The court also addressed costs for an aborted discovery and set a timetable for continued discoveries.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's claim based on the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period had not expired or, in the alternative, that there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's decision to forebear from suing earlier, based on promises of payment and a long-standing business relationship, was reasonable.

The court also determined that there were serious credibility issues and disputed facts regarding the nature of the contracts and payments, making it impossible to dispose of the matter summarily.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, requiring a full trial on the merits.

The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss all claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. and specific claims by 1526806 Ontario Inc. for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, punitive damages, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. due to lack of privity of contract and rejected an attempt to amend the claim for unjust enrichment as untimely.

Claims for aggravated damages were dismissed because corporations cannot suffer intangible injuries.

Claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed due to an absence of evidence of loss or reliance.

However, the motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages was denied, as it was intertwined with the breach of contract claim that was proceeding to trial, raising an unacceptable risk of inconsistent factual findings.

The applicants sought equitable relief and rectification of a second mortgage registered against a property.

Due to a Land Titles office error during conversion from the Registry System, the property owner's name was incorrectly recorded on three of four property identification numbers (PINs), leading to the applicants' mortgage being registered against only one PIN.

The Minister of National Revenue (NR), a subsequent lienholder, argued that the applicants should pursue other remedies like suing their lawyer or claiming against the Land Titles Assurance Fund.

The court found a clear common intention for the mortgage to cover the entire property and granted the equitable relief and rectification, allowing the applicants to enforce their mortgage against all four parcels, thereby maintaining their priority over NR's later-registered liens.

The Plaintiff appealed a Master's order setting aside a default judgment to the Divisional Court, believing it to be a final order.

The Defendant moved to quash this appeal, arguing the Master's order was interlocutory and thus appealable only to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The Plaintiff also brought a cross-motion to extend the time for appeal to a single judge, should the initial appeal be quashed.

The court determined that an order setting aside a default judgment is interlocutory, not final, and therefore the appeal to the Divisional Court was improper.

The court quashed the Plaintiff's appeal and denied the cross-motion for an extension of time, finding no merit to the proposed appeal as the Master correctly lacked jurisdiction to vary a judge's peremptory order.