Maxwell 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 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.