Nadia Condotta

This endorsement addresses a return of a matter concerning limitations on a Mareva injunction and living expenses.

Despite previous opportunities, no evidence was filed by the parties.

The Wei defendants did not seek any limitations.

Counsel for the Lin defendants reported difficulties obtaining instructions, non-compliance with court orders (affidavit, cross-examinations, costs), and a potential conflict of interest between Ms. Shinchi and Mr. Lin.

The plaintiffs highlighted the Lin defendants' continued non-compliance and alleged deliberate avoidance of asset disclosure.

The court ordered the Lin defendants to provide their address for personal service within seven days, failing which substituted service for a contempt motion via email was authorized.

The court declined to schedule further return dates for Mareva injunction issues and reserved costs.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pretrial conference, moving for judgment under Rule 49.09(a).

The court granted leave to bring the motion and found that a valid settlement agreement had been reached.

However, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.09(a) to refuse enforcement of the settlement, finding that it would lead to a clear injustice due to the recent discovery of serious structural deficiencies in the defendants' home, which were unknown at the time of the purported settlement.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Mareva injunction motion brought by the Plaintiffs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants due to their reprehensible conduct, including the filing of a false affidavit by one defendant, and the overall lack of merit in the defence presented by both groups of defendants, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The court emphasized the complexity of the case, the Plaintiffs' complete success, and the reasonable foreseeability of a significant costs order.

The plaintiff, Debt Aid Consulting Inc., a debt relief marketing company, sued the defendant, Financial Rescue LLC, a competitor, alleging breaches of the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, the Business Names Act, and the Competition Act, and tortious interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant was not entitled to conduct business or advertise in Canada, and damages for lost business and increased advertising costs.

The court found that the defendant's activities were marketing services and did not fall within the definitions of a "collection agency" or "debt settlement service" under the CDSSA.

The court also found no evidence of false or misleading representations under the Competition Act or the elements required for intentional interference with economic relations.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The parties returned to court to address alleged deficiencies in the defendants' asset disclosure affidavits, requests for living and business operating expenses, and potential limits on the injunction.

The court found the defendants' affidavits deficient and ordered further and better affidavits with supporting documentation.

The court also granted interim interim orders allowing specific monthly amounts for living and business operating expenses, but found it premature to limit the scope of the Mareva injunction until complete asset information was provided.

The plaintiffs, auto dealers, purchased three vehicles from the defendants and subsequently sold them to third parties in the United States.

The defendant bank held prior registered security interests under the Personal Property Security Act against the vehicles.

The plaintiffs sued the bank seeking a declaration of ownership free of liens, alleging fraud by the sellers.

The bank moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim and for judgment on its counterclaim for conversion.

The court granted the bank's motion, finding the plaintiffs had actual or constructive notice of the registered liens and intentionally committed acts inconsistent with the bank's possessory rights.

The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed, and the bank was awarded damages for conversion totaling $132,250.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the plaintiff, Adam Rowe, successfully opposed the defendant JD Design & Build Inc.'s attempt to challenge an Associate Justice's report.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis, or alternatively, substantial indemnity based on a Rule 49 offer.

The court rejected full indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendant, but awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, totaling $14,500.00.

The court emphasized that the defendant's ability to pay was irrelevant given the application of Rule 49.10.

The defendant JD Design & Build Inc. brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an associate judge's report, which awarded the plaintiff a construction lien and contract damages, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged the associate judge erred in finding that travel time was included in the contract, that certain work was outside the initial scope, and that the costs award was proportionate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the associate judge's factual findings and no error in principle in the discretionary costs award.

The plaintiff, an experienced private lender, brought an action against a law clerk and two lawyers for negligence, fraud, and conspiracy arising from defaulted mortgage investments.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked evidentiary support.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting her claims well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on the standard of care for the professional negligence claims and offered no evidence to support the allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

The plaintiff moved in writing for default judgment seeking possession of a property and payment of $313,544.95.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statement of claim failed to plead facts establishing a contractual nexus between the plaintiff and the defendant, or that any money was actually advanced.

Furthermore, the affidavit in support failed to attach the correct contractual documents and provided no foundation for the various fees and penalties claimed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal concerning the discharge of mortgages.

The appellant, Rick Goodman, challenged two findings of the application judge: that a $60,000 promissory note was statute-barred and that certain legal fees could not be added to the mortgage balance.

The court upheld the application judge's findings, confirming that the promissory note's limitation period ran from its maturity date and that the legal fees, despite being incurred pre-mediation, were not properly claimed six-and-a-half years later.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was largely successful in its construction lien claim and successfully defended against the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought $46,326.42 based on partial indemnity costs up to the date of a reasonable offer to settle, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found the defendants' failure to accept the plaintiff's reasonable offers and their unreasonable conduct during litigation justified the costs claimed.

The plaintiff was awarded $44,000 in costs, slightly reduced to reflect partial lack of success on the main claim, along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor providing swing stage labour, brought a construction lien and breach of contract claim against the general contractor and owner for unpaid invoices totaling $36,761.73.

The defendants counterclaimed for deficiency correction costs and alleged overbilling, including disputed travel time.

The court found that the defendants fundamentally breached the oral contract by refusing payment based on groundless deficiency claims and terminating the contract without cause.

The court held that travel time was compensable under the agreement and awarded the plaintiff $35,643.03, dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

The parties requested corrections to an endorsement released on May 7, 2021.

The court issued an addendum to remove Chubb Insurance Company of Canada and Novex Insurance Company as parties to the applications, and to add a second file number to the citation.

A law firm brought an application for an interpleader order to pay funds held in escrow into court, while a condominium corporation brought a cross-application seeking a mandatory injunction to force the law firm to pay the funds to the City of Toronto for property tax arrears pursuant to a settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the law firm's application, finding it could not use interpleader rules to protect itself from a potential breach of its own undertaking.

The court also dismissed the condominium corporation's application, finding it inappropriate to proceed by way of application without demonstrating a proper legal basis for the requested injunctive relief.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out of its banquet hall business by the respondent landlord due to rent arrears accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the landlord had lulled the tenant into believing rent was reduced or in abeyance, and that the landlord's re-entry on October 19, 2020, violated the Protecting Small Businesses Act, 2020.

The court granted the application, ordering the landlord to restore possession and granting the tenant relief from forfeiture.

The applicants, farmers with multiple mortgages held by the late Leo Goodman, applied for a discharge of the mortgages, arguing they had been paid in full.

The parties disputed the outstanding balance due to poor record-keeping and an unresolved 2008 Farm Debt Mediation Act agreement.

The court determined four preliminary issues to assist the parties in reconciling the accounts: it found a 2008 Interim Agreement was an unenforceable agreement to agree, a $60,000 promissory note was unenforceable, the respondent failed to prove certain construction mortgage advances, and a $15,144 legal account was extinguished by the mediation agreement.

The court directed the parties to re-evaluate their positions based on these findings.

The tenant, a law firm, vacated its commercial premises and sought to sublet to a private school.

The landlord refused consent because the lease expressly prohibited use as a school.

The tenant stopped paying rent and brought an application declaring the refusal unreasonable, while the landlord moved for summary judgment for rental arrears.

The court found the landlord's refusal reasonable and granted summary judgment for the arrears, noting the landlord had no duty to mitigate since it had not terminated the lease.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligent legal advice, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff contended the limitation period did not commence until the full extent of legal costs was known.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered all material facts for the claim by November 2010, including the injury, its cause by the defendant's omission, and that a proceeding was an appropriate remedy.

Consequently, the action, commenced in May 2015, was well outside the limitation period and was dismissed.

The parties, former real estate business partners, disputed the ownership of three commercial parking spaces.

The defendant had paid the entire purchase price, but legal title was registered to the plaintiff's corporation due to a mistaken belief about condominium ownership rules.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to buy the defendant's beneficial interest.

The court found no enforceable agreement existed, noting it would violate the Statute of Frauds.

Recognizing the defendant as the sole beneficial owner under a resulting trust, the court ordered the plaintiff to convey legal title to the defendant.