Maxime Desforges

The plaintiff, City Core Consortia Limited, moved for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property owned by the defendant, 2549386 Ontario Inc. City Core claimed specific performance and damages for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, asserting a reasonable claim to an interest in the property.

The defendant argued the agreement was properly terminated due to the plaintiff's failure to deliver a required deposit and that equities did not support a CPL.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue regarding City Core's claim to an interest in the property, particularly given the "time is of the essence" clause and the plaintiff's failure to pay the deposit.

The court also found that the equities, including a non-registration clause and the plaintiff's delay, favored the defendant.

The appellants, Erica Leslie and Grip Fast Strategies Corp., appealed a lower court order dismissing their action against Stavros Daskos and an order for security for costs.

The respondents, Encanto Potash Trading Corporation, Encanto Potash Corp., and Stavros Daskos, cross-appealed the refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing the claim against Encanto Potash Corp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Mr. Daskos, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding his personal liability or guarantee.

The interlocutory appeals (security for costs and the cross-appeal regarding summary judgment against Encanto) were quashed as they were not integral to the final order appeal, and thus the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Following a summary judgment dismissing the claim against the individual defendants and a corporate defendant, and the dismissal of the defendants' motion for security for costs, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the individual defendants defeated the claim by reviving a corporate defendant late in the proceedings, making them liable for the plaintiff's thrown-away costs.

However, the defendants were successful on their summary judgment motion.

Balancing the relative success and the respective costs incurred, the court ordered that the costs be set off against each other, resulting in no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against the individual defendants and a related corporate entity, and sought security for costs.

The plaintiff's action sought to enforce an arbitral award against a corporation that was discovered to have been dissolved, prompting claims against its principals.

The court found no cause of action pleaded against the related corporate entity.

Because the primary corporate defendant was recently revived under the Canada Business Corporations Act, its acts during dissolution were cured, negating the basis for personal liability against the individual defendants.

The court dismissed the action against the individuals and the related corporation, but denied the defendants' request for security for costs as inequitable.