Matthew Tymon David Marshall

The moving party, a 50% shareholder in a marijuana retailing business, sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal three interlocutory orders granting and continuing an injunction against her.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the delay was not adequately justified and that the proposed appeals lacked merit.

The court emphasized the need for the parties to proceed to trial rather than engaging in further interlocutory litigation.

The applicant sought a declaration that debts arising from a 2016 judgment survived the respondents' discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, alleging fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence in the original pleadings or judgment to support claims of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation in a fiduciary capacity, or obtaining property by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court determined the debt was a breach of contract, not fraud, and that the applicant was attempting to recharacterize the debt post-bankruptcy.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's class action statement of claim, which alleged de facto expropriation by the Crown due to delays at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Crown argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was a nullity due to the plaintiff's failure to provide statutory notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and failed to specify the nature of relief claimed.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claim failed to plead the essential elements of de facto expropriation (no beneficial interest acquired by the Crown and no state action removing all reasonable uses of property).

The court also determined that the Crown could not be vicariously liable for the independent LTB's actions and that the proceeding was a nullity due to the plaintiff's admitted failure to provide the required 60-day notice to the Crown, rejecting the plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the notice requirement.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was denied as the defects were deemed incurable.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by the Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) to strike an application for certiorari and prohibition brought by Gordon Baron and Lifestyles by Barons Inc. (collectively, "Baron").

Baron had been charged under the Conservation Authorities Act.

HRCA sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while Baron proposed a significantly lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded HRCA $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding Baron's underlying application meritless and noting inappropriate conduct, though not bad faith, on Baron's part.

The applicants, facing charges under the Conservation Authorities Act, brought an application for certiorari and prohibition after the trial justice recused himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Halton Region Conservation Authority brought a motion to strike the application.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion to strike, finding that there was no decision left to quash via certiorari following the recusal, and that an order of prohibition was unwarranted as issues of standing and jurisdiction should be dealt with by the trial court.