Neil Colville-Reeves

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent and finding the action was statute-barred.

The damage to the appellant's building was discovered on October 4, 2019, by the property manager.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the presumption under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002 was not rebutted and that the claim was discoverable on October 4, 2019.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a secured creditor owed over $7 million under a promissory note, applied for the appointment of a receiver and manager over all the assets, property, and undertaking of the respondent.

The applicant's security interest was limited to a single US patent and the product resulting from working that patent.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish that it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver over the entire business, especially given the lack of information regarding the value of the secured collateral, the scope of the respondent's assets, and why a private appointment would not suffice.

The applicant sought various medical benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance expenses, and an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to one prescription expense for Apo-Lorazepam, as it was supported by the clinical notes and records, and the respondent agreed to pay one other expense.

The remaining medical expenses and the housekeeping claim were dismissed, as the applicant failed to provide supporting evidence or a required disability certificate.

The claim for an award was also dismissed because the respondent did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits.

The appellants appealed an order validating unsigned 2024 draft wills under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had executed a will in 2018 and improperly executed wills in 2022, before having new drafts prepared in 2024 that remained unsigned at his death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the 2018 will as fresh evidence, set aside the validation of the 2024 drafts because they did not reflect final testamentary intentions, and remitted the issue of the 2022 wills' validity to the Superior Court for fact-finding.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Canguard Group Limited and others from a partial summary judgment order declaring a mortgage on the respondent’s property void as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s reliance on the evidentiary record, including affidavits, and held that the appellant’s failure to respond or provide discovery justified summary judgment.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the scope of the order and the appropriateness of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Herbert and Jacqueline Watkins, setting aside the order dismissing their action and the associated costs order.

The motion judge had dismissed the action for failure to appoint counsel or deliver a notice of intent to act in person under r. 15.04(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for delay under r. 24.01.

The Court of Appeal found that the removal order for the appellants' counsel was not effective, as it was not properly served, and that the motion judge erred in relying on r. 15.04(8).

The finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay was also found to be unreasonable due to confusion over representation.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted an extension of time to appeal an order validating two technically deficient wills under s. 21.1(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The moving parties, who had not opposed the application at first instance, explained their delay and raised serious issues about the testamentary intentions of the deceased and the application judge’s process.

The court found no undue prejudice to the responding party and dismissed a cross-motion for security for costs.

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for a jury trial, relying on the recently amended Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that it would cause undue delay and increase costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bifurcation can promote timely justice, the defendants' request was made too late in the litigation process, close to the scheduled trial date.

The court determined that granting the motion would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs by effectively adjourning the damages hearing for an estimated two years, outweighing any potential cost savings or efficiencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed motions by Canguard Group Limited and 11039342 Canada Inc. for a stay of orders expunging their mortgages, pending their appeals of those orders.

The motions judge found the grounds of appeal weak, no irreparable harm (especially with a no-transfer term imposed on the property owner), and the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay.

The underlying orders were based on findings that the mortgages were fraudulent and no funds were advanced.

The appellant appealed orders striking out two applications, arguing they failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, were improperly commenced, and that the motion judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions on all grounds.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to void the sale and mortgage transactions of two properties (Bradford and Caledon) previously owned by the plaintiff and sold under power of sale by the defendant Roy D'Mello and his companies.

The court found numerous "badges of fraud" and a strong prima facie case of sham or fraudulent transactions due to lack of documentation, questionable dealings, and evasive testimony from various defendants and related parties.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the current ownership and mortgages on both properties void and directing the Registrar of Land Titles to restore the plaintiff as owner and discharge the fraudulent mortgages.

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for a minor plaintiff, Peter Asimakis, who was exposed to fuel oil vapours as a child.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as Peter's litigation guardian, sought court approval for a $10,000 settlement with the sole remaining defendant, R.B. & R. Cartage Inc. The court granted the motion, finding the settlement to be reasonable, fair, and in the minor's best interests, considering the protracted litigation, disproportionate legal costs, and a legal opinion on damages.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court dated September 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the self-represented moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Petersen J. dated July 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiff, Acteon Inc., sought to enforce a judgment from the Commercial Court of Bordeaux, France, against the defendants, Verona Medical Group Inc. (operating under various names including Dent-X Canada), and to stay the defendants' counterclaim.

The French judgment arose from an unpaid balance for medical and dental equipment.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for recognition and enforcement of the French summary judgment, finding it final and enforceable despite a pending appeal of a related merits proceeding in France.

The court also determined that all named defendants constituted a single legal entity, Verona Medical Group Inc., and were therefore liable.

The execution of the enforcement order was stayed until the earlier of the French appeal decision or January 15, 2024, to address potential discrepancies in the judgment amount.

The defendants' counterclaim was also stayed to prevent inconsistent results and multiplicity of proceedings.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions in a protracted five-year-old action involving alleged fraudulent mortgage enforcement and power of sale transactions.

The court first dealt with a recusal motion brought by the defendant, Mr. D'Mello, alleging conflict of interest and bias against the presiding judge.

The recusal motion was dismissed, with the court finding no evidence of bias and noting Mr. D'Mello's history of unsubstantiated bias claims and attempts to delay proceedings.

The court then largely granted the plaintiff's disclosure motion, ordering Mr. D'Mello and his corporations to provide answers to undertakings and refusals, and produce corporate and trust account records relevant to the alleged fraudulent transactions and piercing of the corporate veil.

Mr. D'Mello's cross-motion for disclosure was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence and the plaintiff's prior responses.

The applicant, Roy D'Mello, brought two applications characterized by the court as an unrelenting campaign of stonewalling and delay, weaponizing the Rules of Civil Procedure, and constituting collateral attacks on prior judicial decisions.

The respondent, Chris Jamie Sapusak, brought motions to dismiss these applications.

The court incorporated its earlier reasons for dismissing similar applications against other respondents.

The court found D'Mello's applications disclosed no reasonable cause of action, could not succeed, were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and were not authorized under Rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motions to dismiss D'Mello's applications were granted without leave to amend.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sugunasiri J. dated January 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Petersen J. dated May 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.