Mills

The defendant Westreich brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim against him, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The litigation involved a failed partnership for a land development project, with allegations that Westreich assisted other defendants in misappropriating the project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient material facts to support claims of inducing breach of contract, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, and unlawful conduct conspiracy.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, reducing the requested amount to align with the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's applications to remove the respondent as an estate trustee and compel the closing of a real estate transaction, the court determined costs.

The court found that the applicant's unilateral actions necessitated the litigation and that he should be personally liable for costs, rather than the estate.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $15,000 plus disbursements and HST on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, a disbarred lawyer, brought an action against the Law Society of Ontario and several of its employees, alleging various torts and Charter breaches related to his disciplinary proceedings.

The LSO defendants brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the LSO defendants were protected by statutory immunity under the Law Society Act and that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts to support his claims of bad faith, misfeasance in public office, Charter breaches, intrusion upon seclusion, and defamation.

The court also found the action to be an abuse of process as a collateral attack on the disciplinary tribunal's decisions.

The Statement of Claim was struck without leave to amend.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial to determine a final parenting plan, child support, and spousal support.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo of limited parenting time for the father, while the father sought equal parenting time.

The court found a history of family violence primarily by the father, but noted he had taken steps to improve his parenting.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court ordered the children to reside primarily with the mother while granting the father increased, but not equal, parenting time.

The father was ordered to pay child support, and while the mother was found entitled to spousal support, the quantum was set to zero due to the primacy of child support.

The defendant, a US citizen residing in Texas, brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's breach of employment contract action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, a consulting firm with its head office in Toronto, hired the defendant to provide services globally.

The employment agreement specified Ontario law as the governing law.

The court applied the test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda and the factors from Young v. Tyco, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Texas was a clearly more appropriate jurisdiction.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The Administrator of a consumer proposal brought a motion to approve legal fees incurred for registering a restrictive covenant against the debtor's property as security for the proposal.

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy opposed the fees, arguing they were not prescribed by Rule 129 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the fees prescribed in Rule 129 are exhaustive for Division II consumer proposals, and any administration requiring additional fees must be pursued as a Division I proposal.