Nick A. Porco

Following a largely unsuccessful motion by the plaintiff to amend his claim and add defendants in a putative class action, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Independent Electrical System Operator ($24,000), the Solart-associated entities ($12,500), Melanie Lacroix ($2,500), and Sunny Natalia ($2,500).

The court declined to award the plaintiff costs against the unsuccessful respondent Nikhil Toshniwal regarding the unopposed document service relief.

The plaintiff in a putative class action regarding unfulfilled solar panel installation contracts brought a motion to amend the statement of claim, add 17 new defendants (including the IESO), and extend the time for service on several existing defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to add the IESO and 15 Solart-associated entities, finding the claims against them were statute-barred as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims more than two years prior.

The court partially granted leave to amend the claim against existing defendants, striking certain proposed paragraphs that improperly pleaded evidence or lacked material facts.

The court granted the extension of time for service on several defendants, finding no actual prejudice to the defence.

An appeal concerning whether a daughter exerted undue influence over her elderly parents, resulting in an inter vivos gift of substantially all their capital assets.

The parents transferred their equity in a property to the respondent daughter, who had lived with them and provided care.

The trial judge found no presumption of undue influence arose and dismissed the action.

On appeal, the court upheld the trial decision, finding that while the relationship had the capacity to create undue influence, the trial judge properly concluded the presumption did not arise based on the dominant personality and financial acumen of the father, and that any presumption would have been rebutted.

The plaintiff, Giustina Morreale, sued her sister, Elisabeth Romanino, alleging undue influence over their parents regarding an inter vivos gift of property.

The parents had transferred the equity from their home (Beck Drive) to the defendant and her husband for the purchase of a new home (Russell Stover Court), where they continued to live.

This transfer was contrary to the parents' mirror wills, which intended a more equal division of the Beck property between the sisters.

The court examined whether a presumption of undue influence applied and, if so, whether it was rebutted.

The court found no specific act of coercion or domination and concluded that the strong-willed father made his own financial decisions.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a Mareva injunction that had been granted ex parte freezing her bank accounts.

The corporate plaintiffs alleged the defendant withdrew funds from their accounts without authorization after being given access to facilitate repayment of loans she had advanced to the companies.

The defendant argued the injunction should be vacated due to material non-disclosure, lack of a strong prima facie case, and absence of evidence of asset dissipation.

The court held that the plaintiffs had made adequate disclosure when obtaining the ex parte order and that, although direct evidence of dissipation was weak, the circumstances and strong prima facie evidence of fraud permitted an inference that assets might be dissipated.

The motion to vacate the Mareva injunction was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

A costs decision arising from interim motions in a condominium governance dispute between an owners’ group and the condominium corporation’s board of directors.

The court had previously ordered that an annual general meeting be held and later addressed a further urgent motion concerning voting eligibility for owners in arrears due to a disputed special assessment.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed costs only for work directly related to the August attendance, awarding partial indemnity costs of $5,500 payable by the condominium corporation.

The court declined to award costs for the later attendance, finding the motion misguided because the relief granted had not been sought in the filed materials.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs of over $117,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The responding party argued the amount was excessive and requested either no costs or a substantially reduced award.

The court held that the successful moving party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis but reduced the claimed hours, hourly rate, and disbursements to reflect work attributable to former co-defendants and the relative simplicity of the case.

Costs were fixed at a significantly lower amount after recalculating reasonable hours and rates.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for breach of confidence.

The plaintiff alleged that information obtained during a visit to its premises was confidential and later misused by a competitor.

Applying the elements of breach of confidence from Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., the court found the information—such as pricing, room layout, staffing, and facilities—was either publicly available or trivial and therefore not confidential.

The court further found no evidence that the defendant used or relied upon the information in its business operations.

Summary judgment was granted and the claim against the moving defendant was dismissed.

The applicant management company sought an injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a respondent dentist who formerly practiced at its clinic.

The respondent had removed patient lists upon termination of the management agreement and intended to contact patients.

The respondent argued the covenants were unenforceable as a non-dentist cannot have a proprietary interest in dental patients and the covenants conflicted with his professional obligations.

The court found the applicant had a valid proprietary interest in the clinic's goodwill, the covenants were reasonable and not contrary to public policy, and granted the injunction.

In a supplementary endorsement following an earlier decision, the court addressed an outstanding request by the plaintiff lender for possession of the corporate defendant’s assets pursuant to a General Security Agreement.

The court granted the request and ordered possession of the corporation’s assets, property, and undertaking.

The endorsement also clarified the commencement date and statutory basis for pre‑judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, confirming it would run from the date pleaded in the statement of claim.

The plaintiff was further entitled to post‑judgment interest in accordance with the statute.