Michael T. Doi

The moving plaintiff sought summary judgment against a numbered company and its sole director to recover funds given for a failed cryptocurrency investment.

The company did not dispute its indebtedness but the director opposed personal liability.

The court found the director made fraudulent misrepresentations by guaranteeing that stop losses would protect the plaintiff's crypto investment capital when he had no basis to believe this was possible and later failed to disclose that stop losses could not be set on the chosen crypto platforms.

The court pierced the corporate veil under the Transamerica test, holding the director personally liable on a joint and several basis for the plaintiff's out-of-pocket loss of $152,086.41, being the principal investment less partial repayments.

As the loan agreement was tainted by fraud, the plaintiff was entitled to rescission and tort damages but not contractual interest.

The moving defendants brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike claims for disclosing no cause of action.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent and social media content creator, alleged that she was defamed by two other real estate agents through social media posts.

She sued the brokers of record, branch managers, and brokerages for negligence and vicarious liability.

The court found that the negligence and vicarious liability claims were viable and disclosed reasonable prospects of success.

However, the court struck the claims for punitive damages on a theory of vicarious liability, as punitive damages cannot flow vicariously to an employer.

Leave was granted to amend the pleading to better plead aggravated and punitive damages against the individual defendants.

The defendant repair shop brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's negligence claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was scandalous, frivolous, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged the repair shop negligently failed to properly inspect and diagnose vehicle damage following a motor vehicle accident, improperly diagnosed necessary repairs, and failed to disclose known defects.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded all elements of negligence and that the claim was viable and should proceed to trial.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the Insurance Act barred the claim.

This costs decision addresses the allocation of costs for a distribution motion concerning competing claims over preserved funds in a complex fraud and investment scheme case.

The Trial Parties, who succeeded at trial on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims, sought to recover their judgment from preserved funds.

The Settling Parties, who had reached settlement agreements with the defendants before trial, sought equitable liens and constructive trusts over the same preserved funds.

The court awarded costs to the Trial Parties against the Settling Parties, finding that the Settling Parties had deliberately delayed enforcement of their settlements and improperly sought to benefit from the Trial Parties' litigation efforts without bearing the associated costs and burdens.

The plaintiff sought to recover $500,000 from her younger brother, claiming it was an undocumented loan.

The defendant asserted the funds were a gift.

The court found the action was not statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust by establishing on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff intended to gift the funds as an early inheritance to help him purchase a home following his marital separation.

The court found no unjust enrichment as there was a donative intent, and declined to apply the equitable fraud doctrine as the defendant's retention of the gifted funds was not unconscionable.

The action was dismissed.

The moving parties sought to amend a trial judgment and costs judgment dated August 15, 2022 and February 15, 2023, respectively, to add a defendant who was not named in their original statement of claim and against whom they did not pursue any cause of action.

The moving parties also sought to amend reasons for decision from a distribution motion to align with the proposed amendments.

The court found that the moving parties had deliberately chosen not to name the defendant as a party to their action despite opportunities to do so, had confirmed during discoveries that they were not suing her, and had not cross-examined her at trial.

The court held that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgments, and that Rule 59.06 did not provide grounds for the requested amendments.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that parties must present their entire case and not litigate by installment, and that the principle of finality must govern.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion for interim statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain respondents from contravening the City's Nuisance Gathering By-law 0211-2023.

The motion concerned unsanctioned large-scale gatherings at Ridgeway Plaza scheduled for August 13-14 and 19, 2025, coinciding with Pakistan Independence Day and Afghanistan Independence Day celebrations.

The court granted an interim quia timet injunction against all respondents but declined to grant a statutory injunction against the condominium corporations, finding they were not engaged in ongoing by-law contraventions.

The court balanced the serious public safety risks from overcrowding against Charter rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The court dismissed an action brought by self-represented plaintiffs under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim contained disjointed allegations of fraud, defamation, and discriminatory practices without articulating any legally recognized cause of action or providing particulars to support the claims.

The pleading included inflammatory references to serious crimes, exaggerated damage claims, and unexplained attachments.

The court found the action incapable of success and riddled with hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The defendant brought a motion seeking leave to quash Rule 39.03(1) examinations of its representatives that the plaintiff sought to conduct in response to the defendant's motion to stay the plaintiff's underlying lien action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking leave to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the defendant.

The court granted leave for the defendant's motion to quash but dismissed the motion on the merits, finding that the plaintiff had established a reasonable evidentiary basis for the examinations and that the proposed witnesses were in a position to provide relevant evidence.

The court denied leave for the plaintiff's cross-motion.

The moving defendants, KenzoKai Metal Finishing Inc. and Cristian Bran, sought to set aside a default judgment obtained by Ampere Metal Finishing Inc. The court found that service of the statement of claim was defective as against both defendants, and that the default judgment was therefore irregularly obtained.

The court set aside the default judgment, the noting in default, and all related enforcement steps, including garnishments, and ordered the return of any garnished funds.

The court also found that, even if service had been proper, the Mountain View criteria would have justified setting aside the judgment on the merits.

The court dismissed Aqib Rahman's action against Dewart Gleason LLP and Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim alleged civil fraud by the defendants in defending lawyers in prior litigation, but the court found that the doctrine of absolute privilege, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Rahman v. Elia Associates, provided a complete defence.

The court held that the action was devoid of merit, sought to relitigate settled issues, and should not proceed.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to disclose any intelligible or actionable claim, and the plaintiffs did not provide submissions when invited.

The court granted leave to amend within 60 days and awarded no costs.

The court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the statement of claim and written submissions, the court found that the claim pleaded an arguable and discernable cause of action and should not be dismissed at this stage.

The court emphasized the robust gatekeeping function of Rule 2.1, but found that the statement of claim was not so devoid of merit as to warrant summary dismissal.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving parenting, child support, equalization, and restraining orders.

The court found that the children’s best interests are served by residing primarily with the father, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility.

The mother is ordered to pay child support and a significant equalization payment, and is restrained from communicating with the father or his employer except as necessary for parenting.

The court declined to order police enforcement or spousal support, and provided detailed reasons for each aspect of the relief granted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to plead a legally recognized cause of action or material facts to support a viable claim against the defendant.

The plaintiff did not provide submissions when invited to do so.

The court found the claim to be devoid of merit and an abuse of process, and dismissed the action without costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The statement of claim failed to articulate a legally recognized cause of action, instead making broad, unsupported, and incoherent allegations.

The plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide submissions but did not do so.

The court found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the action without costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to articulate a legally recognized cause of action or material facts supporting a claim against the defendant.

The plaintiff did not provide submissions when invited to do so.

The court found the claim to be devoid of merit and an abuse of process, and dismissed the action without costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Shaukat Ali, failed to plead a cause of action or provide material facts supporting a claim against the defendant, Peel Police (11 Division).

The court found the claim lacked legal merit and reasonable grounds, and the plaintiff did not respond to an invitation to provide submissions.

The action was dismissed without costs.

This decision resolves the financial and support issues arising from the breakdown of an 18-year marriage between Grace Terna Ogunmekan and Kehinde Olusegun Ogunmekan.

The court addresses equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The respondent’s lack of financial disclosure and inconsistent evidence led the court to treat certain undisclosed assets as cash for equalization purposes and to deny his spousal support claim.

The court orders significant equalization and support payments in favour of the applicant.