Maxwell Leo Cohen Reedijk

The applicant was wholly successful on a motion to strike the respondent's Notice of Objection under the Repair and Storage Liens Act and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court found no reason to defer costs, as the respondent had obstructed the statutory process.

However, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,212.04, finding the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for substantial indemnity.

The appellant appealed two orders of a Master dismissing two separate actions against his grandfather for delay.

The actions involved allegations of oral promises regarding the transfer of properties and a business.

The grandfather died at age 96 before the actions were set down for trial.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that there was inordinate and unexplained delay, and that the grandfather's death caused actual prejudice and a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible, as the cases turned on the credibility of oral representations.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Notice of Objection under the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA) and for the return of a customized truck.

The respondent argued the RSLA did not apply because its work constituted manufacturing a new vehicle, not repairing an existing one, and claimed an additional $150,000 for estimated export costs.

The court found the work constituted a 'repair' under the RSLA and that the respondent had attorned to the RSLA process.

The court struck the Notice of Objection as an abuse of process because the additional costs claimed were not for repair or storage, and ordered the return of the vehicle.

The applicant and respondent were partners in a joint venture to develop a condominium.

The applicant exercised a shotgun buy/sell provision, and the respondent elected to purchase the applicant's interest.

The respondent failed to close, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic downturn frustrated the contract and prevented it from obtaining financing.

The court rejected the frustration defence, finding that economic downturns and restrictive lending are inherent risks that do not radically alter the contractual obligations.

The court granted the application and ordered specific performance, noting that damages would be an inadequate remedy.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff alleged a fraudulent scheme involving breach of contract, conspiracy, and other torts by its former employee and various corporate and individual defendants in China and Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts to support personal liability against the individual defendants (except the former employee) separate from their roles as corporate directors or officers.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with the court's directives.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c), arguing the plaintiff failed to set the action down for trial within six months of the close of pleadings.

The court found an inordinate and inexcusable 2.5-year delay.

This delay resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendants' ability to defend the action due to the death of Albert Gilbert, a crucial witness whose oral promises formed the basis of the plaintiff's claim.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent payment under a labour and materials payment bond.

The respondent had performed work under a subcontract with the general contractor, which subsequently abandoned the project.

The respondent then successfully bid to complete the remaining work under a new completion subcontract at more favourable terms.

The respondent claimed against the payment bond for unpaid invoices from the original work.

The appellant argued the respondent had fully mitigated its damages through the completion subcontract and therefore suffered no loss.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the respondent's decision to bid on the completion subcontract was not an action taken to mitigate the loss from the failure to pay for the original work, but rather was a consequence of the contractor's abandonment of the project.