Miguna Miguna

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against a defendant noted in default who had fraudulently induced him to advance large sums of money on promises of investment returns.

The court granted default judgment awarding $327,850 in liquidated damages, $250,000 in general damages for losses due to the defendant's dishonest conduct, and $100,000 in punitive damages for reprehensible conduct in taking advantage of an unsophisticated person and depriving him of much of his life savings.

The court also awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $89,448.60, exceeding the amount sought by the plaintiff, based on the Bill of Costs and the defendant's conduct.

The moving party, who became the sole owner of a condominium by right of survivorship following her former partner's death, brought a motion for vacant possession and occupation rent against the deceased's 85-year-old mother.

The mother argued she had a verbal agreement with the deceased to live in the condo rent-free for life.

The court found the mother's hearsay evidence regarding the deceased's promise to be unreliable and unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court granted the motion, ordering the mother to deliver vacant possession and pay occupation rent of $2,200 per month from the date the moving party ceased financially supporting her occupation.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against an emergency room physician, two nurses, and a hospital following the sudden death of a 40-year-old woman from an acute aortic dissection.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the condition, failing to order a CT angiogram, and failing to refer the patient to a specialist in a timely manner.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the medical records were falsified and that the defendants' care was compromised by anti-Black racism and sexism.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician and nurses met the applicable standards of care.

The court held that the patient presented with symptoms consistent with more common conditions like acute coronary syndrome, and that the physician's investigative approach was appropriate.

The court also found no evidence of record falsification or discriminatory conduct.

During a medical negligence trial, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the evidence of the defendant doctor's emergency medicine expert.

The plaintiffs alleged the expert was biased because his spouse, also a physician, had privileges at the defendant hospital.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess framework and found no disqualifying bias, noting the expert's opinion was formed before his spouse obtained privileges and he had no relationship with the defendants.

The motion to strike the expert evidence was dismissed.

The Landlord appealed an order granting relief from forfeiture to the Tenant, who failed to provide timely notice to renew a lease.

The application judge found the Tenant made diligent efforts to renew and that the Landlord "studiously avoided" contact, motivated by racial stereotyping.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or the exercise of discretion, including the relevance of anti-Black racism in the Landlord's refusal to negotiate.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following the dismissal of a contempt motion.

The respondents, who had successfully defended against the contempt motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants objected, citing the respondents' non-compliance with prior orders and improper filing of materials.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act, declined to award any costs, emphasizing the acrimonious nature of the dispute and the concern that a costs award would further inflame the situation and potentially lead to more inappropriate motions.

Following a successful application for relief from forfeiture involving findings of anti-Black racism, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting that while the respondents' substantive position was unsuccessful, their conduct during the proceeding was professional and not untoward.

The court also found that an offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $41,790, which the court found to be fair and reasonable.

The applicant tenant, a Black-owned restaurant, missed the deadline to provide written notice to renew its commercial lease.

The tenant made numerous attempts to contact the landlord, which were ignored.

The landlord subsequently attempted to terminate the overholding tenancy, citing a preference for 'family-oriented' businesses and making racially coded complaints about the tenant's clientele.

The court granted the tenant's application for relief from forfeiture and an injunction against eviction, finding that the tenant had acted in good faith, the landlord suffered no prejudice, and terminating the lease would give force to the landlord's unconscious biases.

A case conference was held to set a schedule for the hearing of the application.

The court corrected a clerical error in the respondent's name on consent, set a timetable for further materials and cross-examinations, and scheduled a half-day hearing on the merits.

The interim order allowing the applicant to occupy and operate its business from the premises, provided rent is paid, was extended pending the hearing.

This is a commercial landlord-tenant dispute where the applicant sought to restrain the respondents from terminating its tenancy.

The court established a schedule for filing materials and, on an interim interim basis, ordered that the tenancy remain at a standstill, allowing the applicant to remain in the premises and preventing the respondents from taking further eviction steps pending a further case conference.

Following the successful summary judgment motions of seven defendant physicians in a medical negligence action, the court assessed the defendants' costs.

The defendants sought $78,639.56 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $68,694.86, finding the amount claimed for the motions slightly disproportionate to their complexity.

However, recognizing the genuine impecuniosity of the plaintiffs and the tragic circumstances of the underlying case, the court stayed the enforcement of the costs award pending the final disposition of the remaining claims against the other defendants.

The plaintiffs brought medical negligence claims against numerous physicians and a hospital following the death of a patient from an acute aortic dissection.

Seven of the defendant physicians moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs failed to produce expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiffs' expert reports did not establish the essential elements of negligence against the moving defendants, and that this was not a clear case where expert evidence could be dispensed with.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' counter-motion to consolidate the actions and serve a jury notice, but dismissed their request for production of original hospital records, as those records had been destroyed in accordance with hospital policy after being digitized.