Matthew Onaemu Tubie

The moving party sought review of a single-judge order dismissing its motion for an extension of time to appeal an order made in a receivership matter.

The court held that no error in principle, legal error, misapprehension of the evidence, or unreasonable result had been shown, and accepted that the motion judge properly considered all relevant circumstances, including prejudice and the conduct of the receivership.

The court also refused to admit proposed fresh evidence because it was not shown to have been unavailable through due diligence and would not have affected the result.

The review motion was dismissed with costs payable to the receiver.

The appellant commenced an action seeking damages, alleging the respondent lawyer received mortgage discharge funds on his behalf but took the funds without documenting a loan or repaying them.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's summary judgment motion due to conflicting evidence and credibility issues.

On a boomerang basis, the motion judge dismissed the action as statute-barred, finding the appellant knew of his claim by November 2, 2020, when his demand for payment or a signed loan commitment was refused, and the action was not commenced until 32 months later.

The Court of Appeal found no error, rejected the appellant's fraudulent concealment argument, and dismissed the appeal with costs of $8,000 to the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment based on the terms of a Separation Agreement dated November 24, 2023, which provided for spousal support of $800 monthly for three years, terminating on August 30, 2024.

The applicant opposed the motion, claiming the parties had orally agreed to extend the support obligation for a full year and that four months of additional payments constituted a variation of the agreement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment, finding the applicant bound by the terms of the Agreement and that the additional payments were gratuitous.

The court awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal decision that imposed a 30-day suspension and conditions on a liquor licence rather than revoking it.

The tribunal found the licensee had breached conditions and failed to facilitate an inspection, but concluded a suspension was appropriate given the principal's health issues and lack of prior warnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's penalty and reliance on the public interest were reasonable.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment finding she breached an agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant was never in a position to close the transaction.

A one-day error by the respondent in setting the closing date was deemed minor and immaterial to the appellant's ability to complete the purchase.

The appellant appealed an order granting a writ of possession to a non-profit housing co-operative.

The appellant, who was not a member of the co-operative, had been surreptitiously subletting a unit from a member who subsequently withdrew from the co-operative.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to member units of a co-operative and that the appellant had no right to occupy the unit.

The court upheld the application judge's discretionary decisions regarding the writ of possession and the time to vacate.

The plaintiff, Community Trust Company, moved for summary judgment on a mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted judgment for the plaintiff, and ordered the defendants to deliver possession of the property.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of a condominium owned by the estate of the deceased, claiming an express or resulting trust.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of a trust agreement or gratuitous payments, and noting that oral evidence alone cannot create an interest in land under the Statute of Frauds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to pay $193,596.50 to the respondent for her share of a joint bank account following their separation.

The appellant argued there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the quantum owed and that he was entitled to a trial under Rule 16(7) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in relying on the appellant's failure to respond to a Request to Admit, which deemed the quantum admitted.

The court held the motion judge properly applied the summary judgment framework and made no palpable and overriding error.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to move promptly, did not adequately explain the circumstances leading to the default, and lacked an arguable defence on the merits.

The court also noted that the mortgage had matured, rendering the proposed defence largely moot.

The applicants, a consortium of insurers, sought a declaration that the respondent's (Sahara Restaurant) claim for water damage under a hospitality insurance policy was statute-barred due to the expiry of a one-year limitation period.

The respondent argued that the insurers' ongoing communications constituted promissory estoppel, extending the limitation period, and that its demand for an appraisal suspended the limitation period.

The court found that the insurers had explicitly warned the respondent of the limitation period and that normal dealings did not extend it.

Furthermore, the court held that a demand for appraisal does not suspend the limitation period, requiring an action to be commenced to preserve the claim.

Consequently, the respondent's claim was dismissed as statute-barred, and its application to compel appraisal was also dismissed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and its sole director/salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in past conduct that afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

Specifically, the appellants falsely represented odometer readings on three vehicles by rolling them back, failed to maintain required records, and failed to disclose material facts on bills of sale.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The plaintiff, Maxpro Management Services Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Global Transauto Inc., Djamilya Kar, and Mido Salik, for breach of a fuel card agreement and personal guarantee.

The defendants failed to appear for the motion and did not pay previously ordered costs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the breach of contract and contractual interest.

The court also pierced the corporate veil to hold Mido Salik jointly and severally liable with Global Transauto Inc. and Djamilya Kar, based on his misrepresentations and control over the corporation's actions, despite his denial and Ms. Kar's conflicting affidavit.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing a head-on collision and sentenced to a six-month conditional sentence and a three-year driving prohibition.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by sentencing him remotely while he was in the hospital with COVID-19 instead of granting an adjournment.

The Crown applied for summary dismissal of the appeal under s. 685 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the Crown's application, finding the appeal was frivolous and bound to fail, as the trial judge exercised proper discretion in proceeding with the sentencing and the sentence imposed was not demonstrably unfit.

This appeal was dismissed as moot following the death of one of the appellants, Mary Zammit.

The parties agreed that Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was awarded costs for an unsuccessful stay application brought by Mary Zammit and for the appeal, fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

Mary Zammit sought a stay of a lower court order that declared her incapable of managing her property, terminated a power of attorney in favour of her daughter Patricia Zammit, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as her property guardian.

The Court of Appeal, applying the three-part test for a stay from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) and the gloss from Ogden Entertainment Services v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 440, found that the moving party failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court noted the thoroughness of the motion judge's reasons, which included findings of Mary Zammit's incapacity and Patricia Zammit's breaches of fiduciary duty.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellants, David, Jacqueline, and Jeremy Kaweesa, brought a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario to set aside an order by Paciocco J.A. The prior order had granted security for costs to the mortgagees (Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation and Elle Mortgage Corporation) in a mortgage enforcement appeal and lifted a temporary stay on a writ of possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Kaweesas' motion, finding no error in Paciocco J.A.'s application of the test for security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court upheld the findings that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellants had insufficient assets.

The claim regarding the stay was deemed moot as it had expired.

The moving parties (mortgagees and their principal) brought motions in the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking security for costs of an appeal, lifting a temporary stay of a writ of possession, further security for costs awarded below, and expediting the appeal.

The responding parties (mortgagors/appellants) had appealed a judgment enforcing minutes of settlement and granting a writ of possession, which had been temporarily stayed conditional on tax payments.

The court found the appeal grounds frivolous and vexatious, and the responding parties had insufficient assets.

The court granted security for costs and lifted the temporary stay, finding the responding parties breached the stay condition and that the writ of possession was not automatically stayed.

The motions for further security for costs below and expediting the appeal were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued airlines for significant losses, including the loss of a traditional title and the death of their daughter, after Lawrence Mpamugo was denied entry to the United States, preventing them from taking their booked flights to Nigeria.

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. moved to dismiss the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the claims in contract and negligence were not supported by law, as airlines are not liable for passengers' immigration issues, and the Montreal Convention limits liability to damages occasioned by delay in carriage, not denial of entry.

The court dismissed the claims against Delta, allowing only a potential claim for a refund of unused tickets to be transferred to Small Claims Court.

The appellant appealed a trial decision upholding the validity of a marriage contract that waived property and spousal support rights, and awarding a $40,000 lump sum for spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the marriage contract was valid, noting the appellant chose not to obtain independent legal advice despite being warned by a paralegal.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in calculating the quantum of spousal support by failing to consider imputing income to the respondent from his $5 million real estate holdings.

The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for a focused hearing on imputing income.