Nancy Tourgis

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of a commercial property, or alternatively, to hold 50% of the net proceeds of any sale in trust.

The plaintiffs claimed that a 1997 transfer of their 50% interest in the corporation owning the property was subject to an unwritten trust agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm as they were ultimately seeking monetary compensation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants due to the plaintiffs' significant delay in prosecuting the action.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary motion record and subsequent affidavits delivered by the applicants in an application to assess the firm's accounts.

The applicants delivered the 1,229-page supplementary record over six years after the application was commenced, without leave, and after the applicants had already been cross-examined on their original affidavits.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the late delivery constituted improper case-splitting and an attempt to 'shore up' evidence post-cross-examination.

The court also denied the applicants' request to cross-examine a witness, finding they had forfeited the right by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.

The plaintiffs brought two defamation actions against the defendants arising from tweets and emails that characterized the plaintiffs' own tweets as homophobic and transphobic.

The defendants moved to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that, while the defamation claim had some merit, the defendants had a valid defence of fair comment given the highly politicized and hyperbolic nature of Twitter.

The actions were dismissed as strategic litigation against public participation.

The moving parties sought an adjournment of four related applications and two summary judgment motions due to the late filing of a responding record containing an expert report.

The responding party did not oppose the adjournment but argued the expert report should not have been a surprise.

The court granted the adjournment, extended the deadline to set three of the related cases down for trial, and reserved the costs of the appearance to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after an 11-year marriage.

The husband's pleadings were struck for non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the husband for support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed and noting the significant financial support he received from his wealthy father.

The court ordered prospective child and spousal support but denied retroactive support due to unexplained delay.

The court interpreted the parties' domestic contract as entitling the wife to one-half of the equity in the matrimonial home, which the husband had purchased solely in his name.

Furthermore, the court stayed a writ of execution obtained by the husband's father against the husband, finding it was an improper attempt to encumber the matrimonial home and defeat the wife's claims.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel and Tower Toronto who sought rescission of their purchase agreements and the return of their deposits due to alleged misrepresentations.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and that the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria were met.

However, the court found a conflict of interest with the proposed class counsel, who also represented plaintiffs in individual actions.

The court conditionally certified the class action, giving the plaintiff 60 days to retain new class counsel, and consolidated a related action.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendant, who operated a cheque-cashing facility that allegedly processed funds from a massive investment fraud.

The court granted leave for the plaintiff's four-year delay in bringing the certification motion, finding the delay was reasonably explained and agreed to by the defendant.

The court also allowed amendments to the statement of claim.

Finally, the court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding that all requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, including identifiable class, common issues, preferability, and suitable representative.

The plaintiff, a Canadian distributor, brought an action against the defendants following the repudiation of a distribution agreement during US Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The defendants obtained a temporary restraining order from the US Bankruptcy Court enjoining the Canadian action.

The plaintiff then brought a motion in Ontario seeking to enforce an alleged undertaking made by the defendants to the US court to bring a motion to stay the Canadian action.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding it premature and noting that the US court had already considered the issue and was the appropriate forum to determine its own jurisdiction, emphasizing principles of comity in cross-border insolvencies.

The defendants moved to settle the order following a previous decision striking portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court addressed the sealing of motion materials and the impact of the Apology Act, 2009 on the pleadings.

The court ordered the contested documents sealed from the public file and confirmed that references to an apology in the statement of claim must be struck, as the Apology Act prevents such statements from being used to establish liability.

Investors in real estate development projects brought an oppression application under ss. 161 and 248 of the Business Corporations Act seeking, among other relief, the appointment of an inspector to investigate the use of investor funds.

The evidence showed project funds had been commingled in a separate entity rather than segregated as investors had been led to expect, financial disclosure was deficient, audited financial statements were unavailable, and a dividend was withheld from one preferred shareholder.

The court held that these circumstances raised a prima facie case that reasonable security holder expectations had been defeated and that oppressive conduct may have occurred.

The court ordered the appointment of a court‑appointed inspector and granted additional relief including payment of an unpaid dividend, redemption of preferred shares, and production of a shareholder list.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing libel actions against certain defendants, the court reconsidered the appropriate costs award.

The defendants argued that an early offer to settle should justify full or substantial indemnity costs after the plaintiffs refused the offer and ultimately lost on summary judgment.

The court held that the offer did not trigger Rule 49 cost consequences because it expired before the hearing, but it could still be considered under the court’s discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01.

The court found no reprehensible or unreasonable conduct warranting full or substantial indemnity costs but concluded the early offer should have prompted a careful reassessment of the claim.

The costs award was therefore increased from $25,000 to $35,000.

Following the dismissal of defendants’ summary judgment motions and related motions to set aside an Anton Piller order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendants had argued the plaintiff’s action was barred by limitation periods under s. 18(5) of the Radiocommunication Act and the Ontario Limitations Act and sought dismissal on summary judgment.

The court held that the motions were unreasonable given the extensive factual disputes, credibility issues, and evidentiary record requiring trial under the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The defendants also unsuccessfully sought to challenge the Anton Piller order.

Costs were therefore awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial‑indemnity basis.

The defendants brought motions to set aside an Anton Piller order and to exclude evidence obtained under it, and also sought summary judgment dismissing the action on limitation grounds.

The action alleged an unauthorized SMATV scheme distributing encrypted satellite television programming to hundreds of tenants using residential subscriber accounts, contrary to the Radiocommunication Act, contract, and tort principles.

The court held that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and that the Anton Piller order was properly granted, finding no failure of full and frank disclosure.

The court also found that complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and allegations of fraudulent concealment prevented determination of limitation defences on summary judgment.

Both the motions to set aside the Anton Piller order and the motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

A municipal candidate appealed preliminary rulings concerning the scope of an appeal from a Compliance Audit Committee decision ordering a compliance audit under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The appellant argued the appeal should proceed as a de novo hearing rather than a review based on the existing record and challenged the committee’s procedures and lack of reasons.

The court held that appeals are presumptively based on the record unless legislation clearly authorizes a new hearing, and the statute provided only for an appeal.

Issues relating to fresh evidence and the standard of review were properly deferred to the hearing of the main appeal.

The preliminary appeal was dismissed.