Michael M. Title

The appellant registered a claim for lien against the respondents' property.

The motion judge discharged the lien under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act, finding it was registered out of time because the contract work was completed and fully invoiced 11 months prior.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in relying on the invoice and applying the wrong standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual conclusions and holding that the correct underlying test was applied.

The appellant, Gerard Lee, former CEO of Lalu Canada Inc., appealed the dismissal of his application for advance funding of legal costs to defend a fraud action.

The application judge denied funding, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud against Lee regarding "acquisition fees" he had received.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the consulting agreement and assessment of evidence regarding concealment.

The court also affirmed the application judge's application of the "strong prima facie case" test for denying advance funding, finding it commensurate with the stringent standard required.

The plaintiff City of Saskatoon was defrauded of over $1 million when it was tricked into depositing a payment meant for a contractor into a fraudulent bank account.

The funds were dispersed by the account operator to various individuals.

The City traced and froze the funds.

On a motion to determine entitlement to the remaining frozen funds, the respondents claimed to be innocent victims who paid valuable consideration.

The court found the respondents failed to provide evidence that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice or that they had innocently changed their position.

The court ordered the remaining funds returned to the City.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property after the vendors refused to close unless the purchaser assumed an existing tenant.

The court held that the agreement unequivocally required vacant possession, the entire agreement clause barred reliance on alleged pre-contract discussions, and the vendors' refusal constituted anticipatory breach.

Applying the modern specific performance framework, the court found the property sufficiently unique to this purchaser, particularly given neighbourhood characteristics and affordability in a rapidly rising market, and held that damages would be inadequate.

Delay in commencing the application and alleged hardship to the vendors did not disentitle the applicant to equitable relief.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld the Hearing Division's finding that she knowingly participated in mortgage fraud in six real estate transactions and revoked her licence.

The appellant argued the Hearing Division lacked jurisdiction to render a decision with only two members, improperly relied on an expert report, and unreasonably found she had the requisite intent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the two remaining members to complete the hearing, the expert report was properly used to understand red flags of fraud, and the finding of knowing participation in fraud was reasonable.

The plaintiff, Hakim Optical Co. Limited, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after being wholly successful in a prior motion.

The court reviewed the submitted bill of costs, found it reasonable and proportionate, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,821.31 to Hakim Optical Co. Limited, payable forthwith by the defendant, Helen Phillips, after considering Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff moved for an order for payment out of court of monies paid by the deceased defendant, including costs and interest, and for a finding that the default judgment stands due to the defendant's dilatory conduct.

The defendant's representatives sought an adjournment to contest the original service from 2005 and to regularize the action.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the defendant had ample opportunity to challenge the default judgment and service over 12 years.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 9.03(6) to permit payment out despite the lack of a formal Order to Continue for the deceased defendant's estate.

The default judgment was affirmed, and the plaintiff was granted payment of all outstanding costs and the monies held in court.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable on a guarantee for unpaid rent under a commercial lease.

The appellant argued that documents were tampered with, the trial judge was biased, and a breach of the lease's exclusivity provision relieved him of his obligation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of tampering or bias, and agreeing with the trial judge that any breach of the exclusivity provision was independent of the obligation to pay rent and the guarantee.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged defamation, conspiracy, harassment, and mental distress arising from a commercial lease dispute and related litigation.

The court held that the pleadings failed to properly plead the elements of any recognized cause of action and consisted largely of vague and conclusory allegations.

The claim against the moving defendants was struck as it was plain and obvious that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

However, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the statement of claim within 45 days.

The appellants appealed a Motions Court Judge's decision refusing to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The respondents had claimed a remedial constructive trust based on alleged unconscionable conduct following the termination of a contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and vacated the CPL, finding no evidence of unconscionable conduct by the appellants and noting that the respondents' claim was essentially for breach of contract rather than an equitable cause of action.

The appellants appealed a Case Management Master's decision dismissing their $4.6 million solicitor negligence action for repeated non-compliance with court orders.

The appellants had failed to comply with four orders requiring them to answer undertakings and produce documents, including a final 'last chance' order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Master correctly exercised her discretion to dismiss the action under the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce compliance and further the goals of case management.