Matthew Onaemu Tubie

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment and default judgment to enforce a lien against the defendants' unit for unpaid common expenses, including an insurance deductible chargeback and associated interest.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendants acknowledged the debt and the plaintiff provided a revised calculation removing disputed legal costs and related interest.

The court granted judgment for $4,883.33 and fixed the plaintiff's costs at $10,000, significantly reducing the claimed amount of $39,535.53.

The plaintiffs brought a reference to determine damages after the defendants breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The court found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given their specific criteria and the rising real estate market.

Applying the principles from Semelhago, the court assessed damages based on the difference in appreciation between the breached property and a substitute property the plaintiffs subsequently purchased.

The plaintiffs were awarded $150,000 in additional damages, plus thrown-away expenses and substantial indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious conduct.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after the defendants repudiated the contract, alleging the vendor lacked mental capacity and that a Power of Attorney (POA) had been revoked.

The court found the APS to be a binding agreement, rejecting the defendants' claims of POA revocation and lack of capacity due to insufficient evidence.

The defence regarding spousal consent was also dismissed.

Partial judgment was granted to the plaintiffs for undisputed legal costs, with a reference ordered to determine additional damages.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking her statement of claim as an abuse of process and denying leave to amend.

The appellant alleged the respondents orchestrated the wrongful conviction of her father and his company by the Ontario Securities Commission, causing her financial loss as a trust beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions that the action was an abuse of process and that the appellant lacked standing, as the underlying convictions had already been upheld on appeal.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 15, 2019.

The parties agreed that the appeal must be allowed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal but awarded no costs to the appellant, finding that the appellant did not prove forgone income and that the appeal was conceded shortly after counsel was retained without any additional work being performed.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing her motion to set aside her noting in default and granting default judgment to the respondent.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in his assessment of the merits of her defence.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court decision, finding the appeal to be without merit and that there was no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision of the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The defendant, Toronto Hydro Corporation, brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action due to the plaintiffs' failure to pay approximately $45,000 in interlocutory costs orders.

The court, balancing the interests of allowing a litigant their day in court and enforcing court orders, granted the plaintiffs a final opportunity to comply with the outstanding costs orders.

The action was stayed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs in six equal monthly installments, with leave for the defendant to seek dismissal if payments default.

The appellant was charged with 14 offences and convicted of four.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the complainant was not a credible witness.

The court found that the convictions on counts 1, 3, and 13 were not based solely on the complainant's testimony.

The trial judge made no finding of guilt on count 5, and the conviction on that count was set aside.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Following a judgment that reduced the amount claimed on a mortgage by $38,000, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought full indemnity costs of $22,851.46 based on standard charge terms, while the defendants sought their costs.

The court exercised its discretion to deny costs to the successful plaintiff, finding that the litigation was caused by the plaintiff's failure to properly document mortgage advances and its improper addition of third-party rent to the mortgage.

No order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff mortgage lender sought to recover amounts allegedly owing on a mortgage.

The defendants disputed six specific payments that the plaintiff had added to the mortgage principal.

Following a trial, the court found that three payments totaling $79,000 were properly added to the mortgage, while three other payments totaling $38,000 were not properly added due to lack of consent or documentation.

The court directed the parties to calculate the final amount owing based on these findings.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought a forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, for $44,215 in Canadian currency seized from a residence associated with a known drug trafficker.

Wrann Gould, the trafficker's father, claimed the money as his life savings, denying its connection to unlawful activity.

The court applied a two-pronged test: whether the currency was proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity, and if forfeiture was not clearly against the interests of justice.

The court found Mr. Gould's explanations for the cash to be incredible and unreasonable, concluding the money was proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity.

The court further determined that forfeiture was consistent with the Act's purposes and not "manifestly harsh" or "draconian."

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement between the appellant and the respondents.

The settlement released the respondents from all causes of action and claims for damages arising from allegations in action CV-15-541151, with the respondents agreeing not to seek costs.

The appellant contended that she intended to release the respondents from a different, identical action (CV-15-540944) and that the motion judge misapprehended her evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge's findings were supported by the record and that there was no evidence of misrepresentation or incapacity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment motion decision dismissing their defamation claim based on the description of the deceased as "divorced" on his death certificate.

The appellants argued that since the divorce was not final at the time of death, this description was defamatory.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the words were not capable of being defamatory.

The court also rejected the appellants' motion for fresh evidence and declined to address the issue of whether the matter should have been transferred from estates court to the civil list, finding such discretionary matters better left to the Superior Court.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that incidents involving police conduct and court proceedings lacked a reasonable prospect of success against the school board and were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal held that the remaining incidents involving interactions between school employees and the applicant or his mother formed a series of incidents ending within the limitation period.

The application was allowed to proceed on the remaining allegations.

The moving party sought to vary longstanding child and spousal support obligations arising from a 1999 family support order, alleging inability to pay due to reduced income and deteriorating health.

The responding parties and the bankruptcy trustee also pursued relief alleging fraudulent conveyances of real property intended to defeat support and tax creditors.

The court found extensive credibility problems and repeated contradictions in the moving party’s affidavits and testimony, but nevertheless accepted that support should be varied in part based on the child’s age, schooling status, the recipient’s remarriage, and some later evidence of health deterioration.

The court terminated spousal support effective December 31, 2002, varied child support for later periods, and terminated child support on June 30, 2013.

The fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed because, although the initial transfer bore badges of fraud, the later transfer to the brother and his co-purchaser was for valuable consideration, in good faith, and without the requisite knowledge.

The applicant and her co-tenant signed a commercial lease for a basement unit to operate a restaurant.

Shortly after, the co-tenant was incarcerated.

The applicant attempted to access the premises but was repeatedly denied entry by the landlord, who demanded confirmation from the incarcerated co-tenant.

The applicant sought a declaration that the lease was terminated due to fundamental breach.

The court found that the landlord improperly refused access, depriving the applicant of substantially the whole benefit of the lease.

The application was granted, the lease was declared terminated, and the applicant was permitted to retrieve her equipment and receive a refund of her rent deposit.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board requiring him to pay rent arrears.

The tenant argued the Board erred by failing to explicitly determine the respondent was the landlord and by failing to adjourn the hearing when the tenant did not appear.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the landlord identity issue was never raised before the Board and lacked merit, and the tenant's representative had not requested an adjournment.

Following competing motions regarding the jointly owned matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The respondent had successfully moved to refinance the property, while the applicant's motion for immediate partition and sale was dismissed.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably by attempting to resile from a prior agreement regarding the refinancing.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $3,500.

The accused was tried on four sexual-offence counts arising from two alleged incidents involving a young complainant.

The court admitted the complainant's prior video statement after adoption at trial and held that an unproven audio recording of her conversation with a third party was admissible only to the extent she adopted its contents.

Applying the reasonable-doubt and credibility principles governing he-say-she-say cases, the court found multiple material weaknesses in the complainant's chronology and account, including conflicts with travel records and other defence evidence about opportunity.

The Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals were entered on all counts.