Matthew Bradley

The applicant was entirely successful at trial in setting aside a property transfer on the grounds of undue influence and resulting trust.

The applicant sought costs of $486,500 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's unreasonable conduct, breaches of court orders, and rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The court found the respondent unduly lengthened the proceeding and misappropriated funds.

However, applying principles of proportionality and noting some duplication in the applicant's dockets, the court fixed the applicant's all-inclusive costs at $300,000, payable from the respondent's net share of the property sale proceeds.

This is a costs decision following an interim parenting order motion.

The court previously granted an interim parenting arrangement providing the applicant father with weekend and mid-week parenting time.

The respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought no costs or alternatively costs in his favour.

The court found that neither party was successful on the motion, as neither proposed parenting schedule was adopted.

The court determined that success was divided due to the respondent's unreasonable and vacillating positions throughout the motion and the applicant's unsuccessful position stemming from family violence concerns involving his parents.

Accordingly, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court dismissed the defendants’ motion for security for costs against Icon Wheelchairs Canada, finding that the delay in bringing the motion and the arguable merits of the plaintiff’s claims made such an order unjust.

The court also fixed costs for the discontinued action by Icon Wheelchairs Inc., but stayed payment pending the outcome of the defendants’ counterclaim.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the legal framework for security for costs, the impact of delay, and the assessment of the merits of the underlying claims.

The defendants appealed an order by the Team Lead-Associate Judges assigning the plaintiff's fraudulent conveyance action to case management.

The defendants argued the action was exempt under Rule 76 and cited extensive delays.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the action was not commenced under the simplified procedure and the delay was attributable to the defendants.

The court held the Team Lead had jurisdiction to assign the matter to case management without a formal motion, given the history of non-compliance and delay.

Ms. Sochnyeva sought a review of a previous order dismissing her motions for a stay of Divisional Court orders, pending her motions for leave to appeal.

She also brought a motion for reconsideration and reinstatement of a previously dismissed leave to appeal motion.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision regarding the stay, noting the matter was moot as her leave to appeal motions had already been dismissed.

The court also dismissed her motion for reconsideration, finding no circumstances to justify reversing the earlier denial of leave to appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to their persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders, including deadlines for affidavits of documents, attending examinations for discovery, and paying costs.

The defendants repeatedly appealed orders and sought adjournments, which the court found to be an abuse of process.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that further timetable orders would be ineffective given the defendants' history of non-compliance and delaying tactics.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision granting the respondent's motion to strike her statement of defence.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing because she was unable to access the CaseLines program to obtain the virtual hearing link.

The Divisional Court found that this constituted a denial of procedural fairness, as the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to participate.

The appeal was granted and the motion remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant, Giuseppe Campo, as Estate Trustee and in his personal capacity, brought an application alleging that the respondent, Melinda Longo, breached her fiduciary duties as Maria Campo's attorney for property and unjustly enriched herself.

The applicant sought orders compelling the respondent to pass her accounts, declaring certain joint bank accounts and a TFSA as estate assets, and invalidating the TFSA beneficiary designation due to Maria's incapacity and the respondent's undue influence.

The respondent conceded the joint accounts were estate assets but disputed the TFSA and the requirement to pass accounts.

The court granted all orders sought by the applicant, finding suspicious circumstances regarding the TFSA designation and compelling the respondent to account for her actions as attorney for property.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Centa.

The respondent requested the court to dismiss the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the motion under Rule 2.1, noting such dismissals are reserved for the clearest of cases.

Instead, the court ordered the moving parties to file their materials for the leave to appeal motion to be considered in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for breach of a joint venture agreement (JVA) and challenging the calculation of expectation damages.

They also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced with reasonable diligence at the summary judgment motion and would not have affected the outcome.

The court upheld the motion judge's findings of a valid JVA and its breach, rejecting the appellants' argument of contractual frustration as the denial of severance was contemplated in the JVA.

The court also affirmed the calculation of expectation damages, noting the appellants' failure to adduce their own expert evidence or cross-examine the respondent's expert at the summary judgment stage.

The plaintiffs, Home Coffee Solutions Ltd. and 2079162 Ontario Ltd., sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, their former business associates, alleging appropriation of work product, copying product descriptions, customer scooping, breach of fiduciary duties, and irreparable harm in a competing "home coffee solutions" e-commerce business.

The court, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored them.

The court noted the lack of non-competition/non-solicitation agreements and the absence of evidence of actual or imminent misuse of confidential customer data, dismissing the motion for an injunction.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and noting in default obtained by the plaintiff law firm in an action for unpaid legal fees.

The defendant had inadvertently miscalculated the deadline to file his defence and was noted in default without notice.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the delay, and raised an arguable defence regarding the quality and authorization of the legal work.

The court also noted that the plaintiff's failure to give notice before noting the defendant in default was inconsonant with principles of professionalism.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was permitted to deliver his statement of defence and counterclaim.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totaling over $260,000.

The court found the requested amounts excessive given the length and complexity of the hearing, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $50,000 to Israel and $36,000 to CTCC, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, Argentine citizens, brought an action in Ontario against the State of Israel and its Canadian fiscal agent, seeking to recover proceeds from two bonds issued by Israel in the name of their great-uncle's estate.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Israel was the more appropriate forum.

The court granted the motion, finding that the presumptive connecting factors to Ontario were weak and rebutted, as the core of the dispute involved contracts formed and torts allegedly committed outside of Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it because Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum based on the location of witnesses, applicable law, and enforcement considerations.

Kik Interactive Inc. sought indemnification from AIG Insurance Company of Canada for legal expenses incurred defending an action by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) related to its cryptocurrency, Kin.

Kik argued the SEC claim was a securities claim covered by its AIG PrivateEdge Plus policy.

AIG denied coverage, citing exclusion 4(j) for claims arising from any public offering of securities.

Kik contended the exclusion was ambiguous or, alternatively, that an exception to the exclusion applied.

The court found the exclusion unambiguous, applying to all public offerings of securities, not just initial public offerings of shares.

It also determined that Kik failed to satisfy the conditions for the exception to the exclusion, as it did not provide proper notice or underwriting information, nor did AIG offer additional coverage.

Consequently, Kik's application for indemnification was dismissed.

Following a successful application for the recovery of four leased trucks, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging high-handed conduct by the respondents.

The court found the respondents' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The respondents were ordered to pay $36,658.08 in fees, plus taxes and disbursements.

The applicant, owner of four leased commercial trucks, sought an order for immediate and permanent possession of the trucks from the respondent towing company.

The respondent claimed a repairer's or storer's lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for unpaid towing services.

The court found that the respondent was neither a 'repairer' nor a 'storer' under the Act, as the towing was not connected to any intended repair service and there was no agreement for storage.

The respondent's possessory lien claim failed, and any non-possessory lien was unenforceable due to lack of written acknowledgment.

The court granted the applicant immediate and permanent possession of the trucks.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's administrative dismissal of its action for delay.

The action, which sought a declaration regarding mining royalty obligations, was dismissed after the plaintiff's tickler system failed to alert counsel to the five-year deadline while awaiting mediation dates from the defendant.

Applying the Reid test, the Master found the delay was adequately explained, inadvertent, and promptly addressed once discovered.

The Master also found no actual prejudice to the defendant, noting the defendant's own delays and failure to provide mediation dates.

The motion was granted, the dismissal set aside, and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants, Forever 21, Inc. and Forever XXI, ULC, brought a motion seeking a stay of action or to strike the Statement of Claim on the basis of a duplicative proceeding commenced in California.

The dispute arose from a contract between the plaintiff, Ryan ULC, and Forever 21, Inc., concerning HST and GST rebates.

The court applied the convenient forum test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, considering factors such as convenience and expense for the parties, the law to be applied, the desirability of avoiding multiple legal proceedings and conflicting decisions, and the enforceability of judgment.

The court found that the factors, on balance, favored the defendants, and granted the stay.