M. Klaiman

The defendant brought a motion to vary an Amended Judgment to reflect a settlement agreement between the parties.

The parties consented to the amendment, which provided for a lump sum payment in exchange for relinquishing interests in certain properties.

The court granted the motion pursuant to Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the parties were seeking relief other than what was originally awarded.

The parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for residential development lands, which was later amended to increase the fixed purchase price.

The vendor sought to terminate the agreement, alleging duress, misrepresentation, and breaches regarding deposits, pre-sales, and water bills.

The vendor also moved to convert the applications into a trial or adjourn the hearing.

The court dismissed the vendor's motion and application, finding no material facts in dispute, no duress or misrepresentation, and that the purchaser had paid the deposits by crediting the cost of home renovations as orally agreed.

The court granted the purchaser's application, confirming the amended purchase price and that the purchaser was not in default.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a charge registered on a property was void as a fraudulent conveyance.

At a case conference, the respondents argued the matter should proceed as a trial of an issue due to factual disputes and credibility issues.

The court directed that the matter proceed by way of application, noting that the presiding judge could still order a trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, a former student, reported to her guidance counsellor and police that she had been sexually assaulted by the plaintiff, her former piano teacher.

The police investigated and charged the plaintiff, but the charges were later stayed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1) and, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the malicious prosecution claim lacked substantial merit because the police (not the defendant) initiated the proceedings, and the public interest in protecting the reporting of sexual assaults outweighed the harm to the plaintiff.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were successful, the defendant Negravi made an assignment in bankruptcy before costs submissions were completed.

The court held that the proceedings to fix costs were not stayed by s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, applying the rule from British Gold Fields that costs associated with a pre-bankruptcy judgment for a liquidated sum are added to the sum recovered.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs against Negravi on a substantial indemnity basis due to his unreasonable conduct and unfounded counterclaim.

Nominal costs were awarded against another defendant, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs to a successful third defendant.

The plaintiffs were successful at trial and sought costs.

Following the release of the trial judgment but before costs submissions were complete, the main defendant made an assignment in bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings under s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to fix costs because the costs associated with a pre-bankruptcy judgment for a liquidated sum are regarded as an addition to the sum recovered.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the bankrupt defendant due to an unaccepted offer to settle and unfounded allegations of fraud.

The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay $5,661 in costs to a successful co-defendant, and were awarded $1,000 against another co-defendant for defending an exaggerated counterclaim.

The applicants brought a motion in an oppression proceeding under the Ontario Business Corporations Act seeking interim costs and related relief.

The court reviewed the legal test under OBCA s. 249(4), requiring a complainant to demonstrate a case of sufficient merit and financial circumstances that would preclude pursuit of the claim without funding.

The court found that the individual complainant established an arguable oppression claim involving alleged expulsion from corporate management, cessation of compensation, and disputes under a shareholders’ agreement.

However, the trust applicant failed to disclose relevant financial information.

The court concluded that the individual complainant met the financial hardship requirement but reduced the interim costs award to reflect the trust’s failure to disclose its financial circumstances.

A non-share corporation operating a mosque and community centre experienced an internal governance dispute among its members, leading to litigation.

After reviewing affidavit evidence and a monitor’s report, the court highlighted corporate governance errors committed by both sides under Canadian corporate law.

The court encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute without judicial determination.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement providing for an interim executive committee and future elections.

The court approved the settlement, the monitor’s report and activities, and the monitor’s fees.