Michael A. Katzman

The moving defendants sought sanctions after the first plaintiff failed to comply with earlier court orders requiring answers to undertakings and refused questions from discovery and payment of previously ordered motion costs.

The court considered Rules 57.03 and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing costs enforcement and sanctions for non‑compliance with interlocutory orders.

Although some progress toward compliance occurred and the delay was partly explained by counsel’s involvement in a lengthy trial and administrative issues with payment of photocopying invoices, the court found prolonged non‑compliance with two court orders.

The court held that the defendants were justified in bringing the motion and were more affected by the delay than responsible for it.

Costs of the motion were awarded against the first plaintiff.

The defendants sought an injunction restraining execution of a writ of possession arising from a mortgage default judgment.

They argued enforcement should be delayed while they pursued refinancing and separate litigation concerning a third mortgage that allegedly prevented refinancing.

The court held the defendants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or identify any legal right being interfered with, as the plaintiffs held a valid judgment for possession and there was no existing forbearance agreement.

The alleged harms from eviction were compensable in damages and did not justify injunctive relief.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment regarding monies owing on a second mortgage, arguing the motion judge erred in her treatment of the burden of proof, the interests of justice under Rule 20.04(2.1), and the finding of no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the evidence insufficient to establish an agreement terminating liability upon giving up possession of the house.

The court also dismissed an application to introduce fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the judgment by $6,705.58 due to a lack of evidence supporting awards for service of notices of sale and additional legal fees.

The applicants, through their litigation guardian, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent school refused to enroll them.

The respondent requested dismissal of the applications under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the litigation guardian had already commenced a civil action against the respondent's principals based on the same factual dispute.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding dealt with the same allegations and subject matter, and that allowing the applications to proceed would result in duplicative litigation.

The applications were dismissed.