Murtaza Yailaqi

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer regarding financial claims due to his failure to comply with multiple court orders, including support and disclosure orders.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion, supported by the applicant but opposed by the respondent wife from his concurrent marriage, seeking the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property to satisfy his support arrears and future obligations.

The court granted the release of funds, finding it would not prejudice the respondent wife's civil claims for misappropriation.

The court declined to strike the husband's Answer at this time, instead ordering him to provide the outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which the applicant could renew her motion.

The court granted the motion by the defendants Mario Cortis and MediHub International Inc. for security for costs, ordering $80,000 to be posted by the plaintiff, John Davis, but stayed the order for 90 days due to evidence that Davis may imminently return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal test for security for costs, the relevance and admissibility of new evidence, and the balancing of interests between the parties.

The court found that Davis had not demonstrated that an order for security for costs would be unjust, and that the amount sought by the defendants was excessive, setting a lower amount.

The ruling also addresses delay, bad faith allegations, and the complexity of the case.

The applicant sought costs of $17,440.19 for a motion to consolidate civil and family proceedings.

The parties reached a consent agreement on the day of the motion.

The court found the motion was premature and could have been avoided if counsel had conferred in advance.

However, the respondents failed to comply with the rules by not filing responding materials or filing them late.

The court awarded reduced costs of $4,500 to the applicant, payable equally by the respondents.

Following the voluntary release of a construction lien by the plaintiff, the defendant moving party sought substantial indemnity costs of $19,932.03 for its motion to discharge the lien.

The plaintiff argued for nominal costs or costs in the cause.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,000 to the defendant, finding that while the defendant was entitled to costs, the amount claimed was disproportionate and the defendant had engaged in over-preparation and failed to respond to a statutory request for information.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 38.11 to set aside portions of a partition and sale order made after he failed to appear at the application hearing.

The court found that the failure to appear was due to an administrative mistake by his newly retained counsel.

Applying the five-part test for setting aside an order, the court determined that the moving party moved forthwith, would suffer prejudice if the order stood, and had an arguable case on the merits regarding his claim for a constructive trust over the property.

The motion was granted, the disputed portions of the order were set aside, and the remaining issues were stayed in favour of an ongoing family law proceeding between the parties.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $1.6 million matured mortgage.

The defendant's last-minute request for an adjournment was denied due to a lack of extenuating circumstances.

The court granted judgment for the principal debt, accrued interest, and possession.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for various administrative fees and a three-month interest charge, finding them to be unenforceable penalties at common law and in violation of section 8 of the Interest Act, as the plaintiff provided no evidence that they were genuine pre-estimates of damages or actual costs incurred.