Mitchell J. Bates

The defendant, Teva Canada Limited, brought an unopposed motion to transfer a wrongful termination action from the Central South Region (Hamilton) to the Toronto Region.

The court applied Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as where the events giving rise to the claim occurred, where damages were sustained, and the convenience of parties and witnesses.

Finding no connection to Hamilton other than the plaintiff's counsel, and a substantial connection to Toronto (defendant's head office, place of work, and termination), the court granted the transfer, reserving costs to the trial judge.

The court issued Addendum #2 to its judgment, addressing the delay in finalizing the order and an attempt by Emad Elguindy to circumvent the lawful distribution of funds to his judgment creditors.

The court ordered the parties to appear to finalize the judgment, directed the payment of $138,000 to Irene Elguindy, and mandated the Sheriff of Peel Region to receive $130,000 owed to Emad Elguindy to satisfy registered Writs of Execution in Halton and Peel under the Creditors’ Relief Act, treating the regions as a singular district for pro-rata distribution.

The court also commended counsel for providing necessary information regarding the writs.

This addendum to judgment clarifies a typographical error in a previous judgment, confirming a plaintiff's monetary award.

It further addresses the payment of funds held in court, particularly concerning a restitution order against a defendant in favour of a third-party creditor.

The court determined it lacked authority to directly order payment to the creditor without proper enforcement steps, outlining the necessary searches and affidavit requirements for the creditor to obtain an order for payment out of court, while acknowledging the defendant's opposition to direct payment.

The plaintiffs, parents of one defendant and former in-laws of the other, sought repayment of $440,000 in alleged loans for property purchases and trust funds.

The defendants claimed the advances were gifts.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that funds for an investment property were loans ($130,000 awarded to Emad Elguindy).

However, funds for a family residence were deemed gifts, rebutting the presumption.

The court also found a breach of trust and unjust enrichment regarding $100,000 held for one plaintiff, awarding $113,000 to Irene Elguindy.

The court noted issues with both parties' conduct and document production, denying pre-judgment interest and ordering parties to bear their own costs, with Afrodite's costs to be paid from funds available to defendants.

During a trial regarding the repayment of $440,000 allegedly loaned to the defendants, the self-represented plaintiffs brought a mid-trial motion to amend their statement of claim.

The amendment sought to clarify that $100,000 of the claimed amount was held in trust by the defendants and not returned.

The responding defendant opposed the motion, arguing the amendment raised a new, statute-barred cause of action and would cause prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding the amendment merely clarified an ambiguity in the original timely pleading and that any prejudice could be addressed through costs or an adjournment.