Nadia J. Authier

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion to compel the respondent developer to answer questions refused during the cross-examination of a deponent on an affidavit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper refusals chart connecting the questions to the pleadings or affidavit as required by Rule 37.10(10)(a)(i).

Furthermore, the court held that the questions asked were overly broad, akin to an examination for discovery, and improperly sought information regarding shared amenity expenses that had already been ordered to be determined by arbitration.

The moving party, a residential property owner, brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Lien Act to discharge two construction liens registered against her property by a subcontractor and an equipment rental company.

The moving party argued the liens were out of time under the 45-day preservation deadline of the old Construction Lien Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding triable issues regarding whether the old Act or the new Construction Act (with a 60-day deadline) applied, and when the lien claimants last supplied services and materials to the improvement.

The applicant condominium corporation appealed an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine whether the respondents' conduct was oppressive under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.

The applicant argued that oppression claims must be brought before the Superior Court of Justice and cannot be arbitrated.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator was correct in concluding that s. 135 does not oust an arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider oppressive conduct if the dispute falls within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

The plaintiff subcontractor sought payment from the owner's holdback funds after the general contractor failed to pay for work on a restaurant construction project.

The court determined that the contract between the owner and general contractor was not a fixed-price contract but rather a costs-plus arrangement, meaning the owner's 10% holdback obligation was calculated based on the total actual costs incurred.

The court also found the owner was not liable for a further notice holdback because it did not receive written notice of the liens in the prescribed form.

Finally, the court interpreted trust agreements between the owner and other subcontractors who had discharged their liens, awarding them payments from the trust funds based on the specific terms of their respective agreements.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the individual guarantors of a commercial mortgage granted by the corporate defendant.

The guarantors argued the corporate defendant was not in default because the plaintiff had executed a postponement of debt agreement in favour of the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC).

The court found that the clear terms of the postponement agreement meant no amounts were presently owing to the plaintiff until the BDC loan is repaid in 2043.

As the corporate borrower was not in default, the guarantees could not be enforced.

The court granted a 'boomerang' summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the guarantors.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action seeking the return of a $100,000 donation.

The plaintiffs alleged the donation was a conditional gift made for the sole purpose of purchasing a home for three young men with developmental disabilities, and claimed breach of contract and misrepresentation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and utilized its fact-finding powers, concluding that the contemporaneous evidence and the parties' subsequent actions contradicted the plaintiffs' claim of a conditional agreement.

The court found the donation was made without strings attached and dismissed the action, awarding costs to the defendants.

The defendant was successful on a summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's construction lien claim on the basis of diplomatic immunity.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on a pre-hearing offer to settle.

The court found the plaintiff's offer was conditional and the motion's outcome was less favourable to the plaintiff than the offer's terms.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $16,885.00, noting the complexity and novelty of the international law issues involved.

Following a finding that the respondent condominium corporation unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests by requiring a full-time security guard for a pay-and-display parking lot, the court determined the appropriate remedy.

The court held it had authority under s. 135(3) of the Condominium Act to permit the applicant to make the proposed changes to the common elements without requiring a vote by the unit owners under s. 97(4).

The court found a vote would place owners in a conflict of interest given the applicant's outstanding damages claim.

The court also ordered the respondent to turn on and maintain existing lighting in the parking garage.

A construction company sued its former bookkeeper for misappropriating corporate funds through unauthorized cheques, debit card withdrawals, and credit card purchases.

The defendant argued the funds represented unpaid salary based on a verbal agreement for $60,000 per year, but the court rejected this claim, finding she was paid hourly and lacked authorization to access corporate funds for personal use.

The court concluded the defendant breached her fiduciary duties and committed fraud by systematically diverting corporate funds for personal benefit over several years.

Judgment was awarded for the full amount of misappropriated funds and punitive damages were granted.

The court further held the debt would survive any bankruptcy discharge pursuant to s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.