Nathan I. Lean

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) sought a court order validating its by-laws and articles, which had been amended over a decade without compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA) due to erroneous legal advice.

The court found that the CFPC had failed to hold required separate class votes for membership changes, rendering its constating documents improperly enacted.

The Resident Doctors of Canada, while generally supporting the application, sought restoration of voting rights for family medicine residents.

The court held that section 288(4) of the CNCA provided broad remedial powers to validate the documents and to reclassify family medicine residents as voting members.

The application was granted, validating the CFPC’s by-laws and articles nunc pro tunc and restoring voting rights to family medicine residents.

The Landlord brought a motion for default judgment against the Tenant and Jeff Donnelly for damages arising from a lease breach.

The court granted partial judgment for rent arrears, vacancy arrears, and realtor/property management fees totaling $87,633.65.

However, the court declined to grant judgment for the claimed future rent differential, citing the lack of present value calculations and insufficient evidence of mitigation efforts.

Additionally, the claim for a penalty against Jeff Donnelly under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act was not granted due to the absence of evidence regarding the value of the removed chattels.

The remaining issues were ordered to proceed to trial.

The defendants, having successfully obtained an order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), sought substantial indemnity costs of $31,122.07.

The plaintiffs argued for a much lower award.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached their obligation for full and fair disclosure of material facts on their initial ex parte motion to register the CPL.

Citing this material non-disclosure as an exceptional circumstance, the court awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs as requested, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs.

The defendants moved to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered against a property, alleging the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on their ex parte motion and did not satisfy the test for CPL registration.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts, including a share pledge and purchase agreement, and that they lacked a direct interest in the property.

The court granted the defendants' motion, discharging the CPL, emphasizing the duty of full disclosure on ex parte motions and the absence of a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land.

The plaintiffs sought penalties against the defendants for their continued contempt of court orders requiring them to provide an accounting of $9,000,000 in allegedly defrauded funds, information about luxury automobiles, contact information, and disclosure.

The court found that the defendants had not purged their contempt and provided implausible explanations for their non-compliance.

As a penalty, the court granted judgment against the defendants, striking their ability to defend the action, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought interim orders to compel the sale of a property and non-party document disclosure, alleging oppression and fraud by the defendants.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test for the mandatory interlocutory injunction.

It found a strong prima facie case of oppression due to the defendants' breach of shareholder agreements, diversion of funds, and lack of credibility, evidenced by their non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court approved the plaintiffs' proposed sale of the property for $12 million over the defendants' $15 million offer, citing the plaintiffs' offer's certainty and the defendants' unreliability.

The court also granted the non-party production order.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendants in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The defendants were unable to complete the purchase due to financing issues after an appraisal valued the property significantly lower than the agreed price.

The defendants also brought a third-party claim against their real estate agent, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and conflict of interest, as the plaintiff-vendor was also a real estate agent with the same brokerage.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the issues in the main action were inextricably intertwined with the third-party claim, creating a risk of inconsistent findings if summary judgment were granted partially.

The defendants moved to set aside a noting in default and the related default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for printing services and personal guarantees.

The court applied the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen.

While the defendants failed to demonstrate promptness in bringing the motion and provided an unconvincing explanation for their default, they successfully established an arguable defence regarding a portion of the debt, as the plaintiff's judgment amount lacked sufficient evidentiary support for its full quantum.

The court varied the default judgment, reducing the principal sum by $65,000, set aside the noting in default, and granted the defendants leave to deliver a statement of defence for the remaining balance.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed from a summary judgment order granting judgment in favour of the respondents in two related actions concerning the sale of a property in Brampton.

The property was sold by the respondent Linda Hill to the appellant Fawzia Mary Mikhail with a vendor takeback mortgage.

The appellant Michael Mikhail guaranteed his mother's obligations under the mortgage.

The appellants defaulted on the mortgage beginning in May 2016, and the respondents issued a Notice of Sale.

The appellants sought to set aside the Notice of Sale and the respondents sought summary judgment.

The motion judge found a valid mortgage, proper notice of sale, and default since May 2016, and granted summary judgment.

The appellants argued they had missed only one payment by accident and quickly indicated willingness to correct the error, asserting the consequences were too severe.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's factual findings regarding the continuing default were supported by the record and that there was no evidence the default had been remedied.