Michael Cassone

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to collect the $69,090.92 balance of an unpaid loan used by the defendant to purchase securities.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the bank was responsible for the fraudulent actions of her investment advisor and breached a fiduciary duty.

The court granted summary judgment for the bank and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence that the bank was responsible for the advisor's actions and affirming that a standard debtor-creditor relationship does not create a fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a defaulted commercial loan and mortgage.

The defendants failed to appear and relied on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA), claiming indigenous status and that the land was unceded.

The court found these defences to be nonsense, noting the defendants received the funds and defaulted on their obligations.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the debt owing, possession of the property, and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought an action for mortgage default against the defendants.

The defendants filed a counterclaim using organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments (OPCA), naming the provincial and federal Crowns, and issued summonses to the Chief Justice of Canada and a former registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court dismissed the counterclaim under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court also quashed the summonses to witness as an abuse of process and adjourned the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to allow the defendants to file responding material.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant owner for $12,500, representing the statutory holdback the owner failed to retain from the general contractor.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff's construction lien was preserved within the 45-day statutory time limit.

The plaintiff claimed the last date of service was March 26, 2013, while the defendant argued it was March 8, 2013.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the March 26 date lacked credibility and reliability, concluding the last date of service was likely March 8.

As a result, the lien was not preserved in time, and the action was dismissed.

The court-appointed receiver for an insolvent boat manufacturing company sought approval to assign the company's $20 million lawsuit against a supplier to the daughter of the company's deceased principal.

The supplier opposed the assignment, arguing the receiver failed to obtain an Order to Continue under Rule 11 and that the process was unfair because the supplier was not given an opportunity to submit a competing offer.

The court approved the assignment, applying the Soundair principles, finding that the receiver acted reasonably and commercially sensibly in accepting the offer after the supplier had repeatedly indicated it would only settle for a dismissal without costs.

The court also ordered that the financial details of the offers remain sealed to prevent prejudice in the ongoing litigation.