Michael T. Doi

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.

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 brought an application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to order a unit owner, Carmine Leuzzi, to cease and desist from harassing individuals on the condominium property.

Mr. Leuzzi brought a cross-application under section 135 of the Act seeking an oppression remedy.

The court addressed several preliminary evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of audio recordings and hearsay statements in affidavits.

Ultimately, the court granted the condominium corporation's application and dismissed the unit owner's cross-application.

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 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 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 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.

The court ruled on a threshold motion and costs following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case.

The defendant conceded liability, but after the jury awarded no damages, the defendant moved for a declaration that the plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for health care expenses and non-pecuniary damages under the Insurance Act and regulations.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment, it was not serious or important enough to meet the threshold.

The defendant was awarded $150,000 in costs.

The court dismissed the defendant RNAO’s motion to strike or stay the plaintiff’s claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for duplicity with a second pending action.

The court found that the plaintiff’s claim for breach of good faith in the administration of RNAO’s Legal Assistance Program was novel but arguable, and that the law in this area remains unsettled.

The court also declined to stay or dismiss the action as an abuse of process, finding that the existence of a second, similar action did not automatically warrant such relief and that the issues could be managed through case management or consolidation.

The applicants, minority shareholders of 2823363 Ontario Inc., brought motions for leave to be represented by non-lawyers and to enforce a prior court order directing the release of trust funds to the corporation.

The respondent majority shareholder opposed the enforcement, arguing that it had reconstituted the corporation's board of directors and revoked the instructing authority of the sole director who sought the funds.

The court granted leave for the non-lawyer representation, finding that the corporations were closely held and unable to afford counsel.

The court also granted the motion to enforce the prior order, holding that the majority shareholder's attempt to appoint additional directors breached the express terms of the unanimous shareholder agreement, which limited the board to one director.

The applicant father sought a "chasing order" for declaratory relief that the child, F.K., is habitually resident in Brampton, Ontario, and for the child's return from Poland under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention.

The court found that F.K. was wrongfully retained in Poland by the mother and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal principles of habitual residence, wrongful retention, and the best interests of the child, and addresses the credibility of the parties' evidence.

The court dismissed Douglas LaFramboise’s action against Robert Kostyniuk as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The claim arose from a prior action in which Kostyniuk, as counsel for Sylvia Zwaan, obtained judgment against LaFramboise for unlawful conversion.

The court found that LaFramboise’s new action was a collateral attack on prior decisions, was barred by absolute privilege, and that Kostyniuk owed no duty of care to LaFramboise.

The court emphasized the robust application of Rule 2.1 to prevent frivolous or vexatious litigation.