Nicholas Reinkeluers

The plaintiff, 5004514 Ontario Inc. (formerly Ajax Sales & Service Inc.), brought a motion for leave to correct a misnomer in its Statement of Claim to add Kaizer Husseini Poonawalla as a separate defendant.

The original claim incorrectly listed Kaizer as an alias of Husseini Poonawalla.

The court applied the "litigating finger" test for misnomer, finding that an objective reading of the original claim would indicate Kaizer was an intended defendant.

The court also addressed the defendants' argument regarding the expiry of the limitation period, concluding that limitation period defenses do not apply to motions to correct a misnomer.

Even if misnomer did not apply, the court found a triable issue of fact or credibility regarding discoverability.

The motion was granted, allowing the plaintiff to amend its claim.

The applicants and respondent owned adjacent rowhouses.

The applicants' front veranda and a portion of their rear wall encroached onto the respondent's property.

The applicants sought a declaration of possessory title by adverse possession, relying on statutory declarations from the respondent's predecessor in title acknowledging the encroachments and her exclusion from the land between 1975 and 1990.

The court found that the physical layout and the predecessor's acquiescence satisfied the test for adverse possession before the land was converted to the Land Titles system.

The applicants' claim was granted and the respondent's cross-application for removal of the structures was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Voysus Connection Experts Inc., initiated an action alleging fraud and other breaches against former employees.

Voysus obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against two defendants, Tayyab Shaikh and Anisha Shaikh, which was subsequently dismissed due to Voysus's failure of full and frank disclosure.

Voysus's motion to strike certain evidence from the defendants was also dismissed, though a confidentiality order was issued.

This endorsement addresses the costs of both motions.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the Mareva motion and costs for the motion to strike.

The court found that while Voysus's conduct warranted reproach, the defendants' conduct also unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of $70,000.00 for the Mareva motion and ordered each party to bear their own costs for the motion to strike, concluding that the motion to strike was misconceived due to the defendants' actions.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion to continue an ex parte Mareva injunction against two former employees, alleging they engaged in fraudulent schemes involving payroll and expense accounts.

The plaintiff also moved to strike certain evidence produced by the defendants, including surreptitious recordings and confidential documents.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, noting that illegally obtained evidence may be admissible in civil proceedings, but ordered the defendants to maintain the confidentiality of the documents.

The court dismissed the motion to continue the Mareva injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion and failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant and indemnifiers for damages arising from the breach of a commercial lease.

The tenant never took possession of the unit or paid rent.

The landlord terminated the tenancy and re-let the premises at a lower rate, claiming the shortfall.

The court granted summary judgment on liability and awarded damages for arrears up to the date of termination.

However, the court ordered a trial to determine the net present value of the landlord's claim for future rent losses.

Zenex Enterprises Limited ("Zenex") sought a declaration that its leases with Promenade Limited Partnership ("Promenade") were valid and in good standing, or in the alternative, relief against forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The court found Promenade's notice of default invalid due to improper claims of lease breaches and Zenex having remedied any alleged breaches.

However, the court also found that Promenade's notices of termination, issued under a mutual termination right in the leases, were valid.

Relief against forfeiture was not granted for these terminations as they were based on a contractual right, not a breach.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, International Steel Services Inc. (ISSI), sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Dynatec Madagascar S.A. (Dynatec), from interfering with ISSI's contractual rights under a Sulphuric Acid Plant Operation and Maintenance Agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the agreement was extended to September 27, 2018, as ISSI contended, or if it terminated on May 1, 2016, as Dynatec argued.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for injunctions, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the agreement's extension and Dynatec's termination notice.

It determined that ISSI faced a meaningful risk of irreparable harm to its business reputation and employee relations if Dynatec proceeded with its takeover plans.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured ISSI, noting Dynatec's "hardball tactics" and delay in facilitating arbitration.

The interim protective order was granted to ISSI, prohibiting Dynatec from interfering with ISSI's contractual rights and operation of the Acid Plant pending an arbitral decision.