M. Ross

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to vary a Mareva injunction to unfreeze the bank account of one of the corporate defendants to allow for the operation of a store.

The court granted the variation.

Additionally, counsel for several defendants brought a motion on consent to be removed as counsel of record, which was also granted, with directions for the transfer of trust funds subject to the Mareva injunction.

The plaintiffs sought an order extending a Mareva Injunction and Norwich Order, and for production of bank accounts.

The defendants sought a variance of the Mareva Injunction to unfreeze a bank account to allow business transactions in the ordinary course, prevent interference with third-party suppliers, and allow for the payment of legal expenses.

The court granted the relief sought by the parties on consent.

At a case conference, the court established a new peremptory timetable for an application regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The respondent had failed to comply with the previous timetable and recently retained new counsel.

The court ordered the respondent to deliver its record, including proof of payment for additional rent claimed, and set dates for cross-examinations and factums.

The plaintiff purchased a commercial building from the defendant.

Prior to closing, the defendant provided a statutory declaration claiming uninterrupted use of an adjacent driveway without ever seeking permission.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the adjacent owner for a prescriptive easement but lost after discovering the defendant had previously sought permission via an unsigned 1987 agreement.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant for negligent misrepresentation to recover its legal costs from the unsuccessful easement action.

The Superior Court dismissed the action, finding that while the declaration contained false statements and the defendant owed a duty of care, the plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the misrepresentations because it would have continued the easement litigation based on its counsel's advice regardless of the 1987 agreement.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that its commercial lease was valid and binding on the new owner of the building.

The applicant had signed a new five-year lease with the previous landlord, but the landlord claimed it was never received.

Both parties, however, acted as if the lease were in effect, with the applicant paying increased rent.

The new owner purchased the building and claimed the applicant was a month-to-month tenant, seeking to significantly increase the rent.

The court found that the lease was valid and enforceable through the doctrine of part performance.

Furthermore, the court held that the unregistered lease was binding on the new owner because the new owner was wilfully blind to the existence of the lease during the purchase process.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff subcontractor's action, obtain default judgment on its counterclaim, and cancel a lien bond.

The plaintiff had abandoned the action after its counsel was removed from the record.

Another subcontractor opposed the cancellation of the lien bond, arguing it should be pooled to cover its own costs and interest.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, granted default judgment on the counterclaim, and ordered the lien bond cancelled, finding that the pooling provisions of the Construction Lien Act did not apply where all liens had been bonded off.

The plaintiff purchased a farm property from the defendant vendors.

After closing, she discovered severe latent defects, including a history of basement flooding, a failed septic system, and that the house additions and garage were built without building permits.

The plaintiff sued the vendors for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, and her title insurer for breach of contract after it denied coverage.

The court found the vendors liable for actively concealing defects and acting with reckless disregard.

The court also found the title insurer liable, holding that the lack of permits and unsafe building orders were covered risks under the policy.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the full replacement cost of the structures, special damages, general damages for mental distress, and punitive damages against the vendors.

The title insurer was held jointly and severally liable for the replacement costs and special damages, but was granted full indemnity from the vendors.

A creditor applied for a bankruptcy order against the debtor under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, alleging acts of bankruptcy including ceasing to meet liabilities generally as they became due and exhibiting a statement of assets and liabilities showing insolvency.

The court held that the applicant established a prima facie case that the debtor had ceased to meet liabilities generally, based on an unsatisfied judgment debt and unpaid tax arrears to the Canada Revenue Agency within the relevant six‑month period.

The debtor failed to provide independent evidence demonstrating the ability to meet liabilities or establishing a binding arrangement with the tax authority that would negate the inference of general non‑payment.

The court rejected the argument that the bankruptcy application was brought for an improper purpose.

The debtor was adjudged bankrupt and a trustee appointed.