Mark Ross

The defendants sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion that dismissed the plaintiff's action based on a prior settlement and release.

The release stipulated that any party breaching it would be liable for costs on a 'solicitor and his own client scale.' The court held that this phrase is synonymous with full indemnity costs, distinguishing prior case law that equated it with substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, fixing them at $70,235.52 for one defendant and $110,000 for the other two defendants, reducing the latter's claim due to overstaffing.

The court-appointed Administrator of an estate brought a motion to appoint an investigator to review the accounts and assets of two intertwined family estates.

The estates had been mired in years of acrimonious litigation among the sibling beneficiaries, with allegations of breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated funds.

Finding that the accounts were complex, significant information was missing, and the parties were highly dysfunctional, the court granted the motion and appointed the investigator to provide a neutral analysis.

Six consolidated actions arising from a bitter, multi-year dispute between two competing 'cash for gold' businesses in Toronto.

The feud escalated into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.

The employee sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The court found the hitman liable for malicious prosecution and both the hitman and the competitor liable for abuse of process, awarding the employee $221,775 in damages.

In the corporate actions, the court found the opposing business owner liable for nuisance and intentional interference with economic relations for using 'sandwichboarders' to harass the competitor's business, awarding $200,000.

The competitor was awarded $50,000 for defamation regarding statements made to a newspaper.

The opposing business owner's claims for defamation and misappropriation of personality were dismissed.

Following a successful motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order, the plaintiffs sought costs of $47,495.53 jointly and severally against the defendants.

The defendant Rosanna Boccia argued that costs against her should be in the cause, as she did not engage in the obstructionist tactics employed by her co-defendant son.

The court agreed that Rosanna played by the rules but noted she still lost the motion.

The court awarded total costs of $47,000, holding Rosanna jointly and severally liable for half ($23,500), while the co-defendants were held liable for the full amount.

The applicant tenant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent landlord from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it.

The landlord issued a notice of default claiming unpaid rent and taxes, but the court found the alleged arrears were entirely due to the landlord's own billing and clerical errors.

The landlord alternatively argued it could terminate the lease without default by compensating the tenant in damages, relying on contract law principles.

The court rejected this argument, holding that a commercial lease grants a possessory property right that cannot be unilaterally expropriated by the landlord.

The notices of default and termination were declared null and void, and the landlord was enjoined from terminating the lease.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

During an ongoing civil trial, the court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of an affidavit sworn by a non-party in a separate, sealed family proceeding.

The affidavit had come into the possession of one of the defendants.

The objecting parties argued the affidavit was protected by solicitor-client privilege and was obtained unlawfully.

The court held that the sworn affidavit filed in court was not a privileged communication and that the sealing order did not reinstate privilege.

The court ruled the affidavit admissible for impeachment purposes as a prior inconsistent statement.

The applicant pharmacy owner sought a declaration and injunction to enforce a non-competition clause against a former pharmacist employee who resigned and began working at a nearby pharmacy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the non-competition clause was unenforceable because its description of prohibited activities was both ambiguous and overly broad, extending beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect the employer's proprietary interests.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for judgment against the defendant vendors for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for seven apartment buildings.

The defendants failed to discharge mortgages on title prior to closing, breaching the agreement.

The plaintiff sought damages for sunk costs and over $56 million for lost capital appreciation, based on the defendants' subsequent sale of the properties 2.5 years later.

The court awarded the sunk costs but dismissed the claim for lost profits, holding that damages must be assessed at the closing date and that the plaintiff, an international real estate investor, had mitigated its losses by deploying its funds elsewhere.

The successful defendants sought their costs of the trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the litigation was egregious and reprehensible, including forging a signature and improperly registering notices on title to delay the sale of a property.

As a result of this malicious and unreasonable conduct, the court awarded the defendants their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming a 50% partnership or beneficial interest in a residential property purchased by the defendant Kats.

The plaintiff alleged they had an oral agreement to share the down payment and carrying costs equally.

The court found the plaintiff failed to contribute any funds, fraudulently placed a second mortgage in Kats' name, and breached the purported agreement.

When Kats attempted to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser, the plaintiff improperly registered notices on title to block the sale, despite a court order.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, validated the sale agreement, and awarded the purchaser $35,000 in punitive damages for slander of title due to the plaintiff's malicious conduct.

The applicant and respondent owned adjoining properties with a shared laneway.

The respondent, developing a condominium, entered into an agreement to pay the applicant for encroaching on the laneway.

After the agreement's initial term expired, the respondent stopped paying but continued to obstruct the laneway.

The applicant sought $75,000 for 10 months of continued obstruction.

The court admitted a late affidavit from the applicant, found that the agreement had been implicitly extended, and alternatively found that the respondent substantially interfered with the applicant's right of way.

The court awarded the applicant $67,500 for nine months of obstruction, plus costs.

The plaintiffs in a construction deficiency action brought a motion to compel the defendant Monterey Park to provide a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically seeking income tax returns, financial statements, general ledgers, and working papers for a three-year period.

The plaintiffs alleged Monterey Park was the alter ego of the defendant Ridgevale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the pleaded allegations, as existing productions already demonstrated the financial relationship between the corporate parties.

The court also held that the broad request for three years of financial records offended the principle of proportionality.

Following a summary judgment finding the defendants liable for breaching a commercial lease, the court held a mini-trial to quantify damages.

The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence on the present value of unpaid rent, less mitigation from a new lease and the value of distrained chattels left by the tenant.

The court awarded the plaintiff $408,046 in damages, plus pre-judgment interest, and $49,046.05 in partial indemnity costs against the active defendants.

The plaintiffs initiated steps to bring a motion to remove the defendants' lawyer for alleged conflict of interest and fraud, including requesting a case conference and setting a timetable.

On the deadline to serve their motion record, the plaintiffs indicated they were not proceeding.

The defendants sought costs for the abandoned motion.

The Master held that although no formal notice of motion or abandonment was served, the plaintiffs had 'made' a motion under Rule 37.09(1) by taking positive steps.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity scale due to the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and unprofessional communications.

The moving defendants sought to set aside an earlier ex parte order that imposed a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on several properties and included broad freezing and disclosure orders arising from allegations of a fraudulent real estate scheme.

The court held that a CPL may only be granted where the proceeding places an interest in land in question under s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Because the plaintiff’s claim sought only damages and did not assert a proprietary interest in the lands, the CPLs registered against several properties were discharged.

However, the court declined to set aside the remaining provisions of the earlier order, including asset-freezing and disclosure provisions, due to insufficient evidentiary record and the parties’ mutual delay in advancing the litigation.

The plaintiff’s cross-motion, including requests for summary judgment and bankruptcy-related relief, was adjourned sine die except for a refinancing-related request which was dismissed.

The applicants obtained a $1.5 million judgment against the respondent and sought to enforce a $350,000 mortgage he had placed on a property to secure the debt.

The respondent held the property as an estate trustee for his mother's estate, with himself and his two brothers as equal beneficiaries.

One brother brought a counter-application claiming sole ownership of the property based on an oral agreement with their late mother.

The court dismissed the counter-application, finding the oral agreement void under the Statute of Frauds and that the property interests had vested in the three brothers.

The court held the mortgage was valid but only enforceable against the respondent's one-third interest in the property, and granted the applicants the right to seek partition and sale.