N. Joan Kasozi

The plaintiff brought an action to recognize and enforce a New York judgment against the defendants.

The defendants moved for leave to amend their statements of defence, advance crossclaims against each other, and issue third party claims against another individual named in the foreign judgment.

The court granted leave for the consented amendments regarding the voluntariness of the underlying settlement.

However, the court dismissed the motions for crossclaims and third party claims, finding them legally untenable as they improperly sought to relitigate substantive issues of contribution and indemnity that were not part of the foreign judgment.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 in damages and $15,680.62 in costs arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The appellant argued the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction, erred in assessing damages, breached procedural fairness, and erred in calculating pre-judgment interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds except for pre-judgment interest, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing damages for unlawful termination, loss of quiet enjoyment, and punitive damages.

The start date for pre-judgment interest was amended to July 31, 2017.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they unjustifiably terminated and repudiated a residential renovation contract.

The trial judge awarded the respondent contractor $105,804.92 plus costs.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the trial judge's exclusion of their proposed expert, interpretation of the contract, factual findings on completion percentage, and credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also denied.

The moving party, a construction company, sought to transfer its appeal of a lien action dismissal order from the Court of Appeal to the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, or alternatively an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The motion judge found that conflicting precedents — TRS Components and Arcamm — created genuine uncertainty over whether the appeal route under s. 71 of the Construction Act lay to the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal.

Unable to conclude the appeal was filed in the wrong court, the motion judge declined the transfer.

The extension of time was granted given that both parties had operated under the shared mistaken assumption that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction, which was attributable to the competing jurisprudence rather than inadvertence.

The appellants sought an order under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer their appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Divisional Court and to extend the time for serving and filing a notice of appeal.

The appeal arose from a construction contract dispute where the respondent contractor brought a lien action under the Construction Act after the appellants refused to pay the final invoice.

The trial judge awarded damages in favour of the respondent.

The appellants' counsel had filed the notice of appeal in the wrong court.

The motion judge found that the appellants satisfied the three criteria for transfer: arguable grounds of appeal, manageable prejudice to the respondent, and expeditious action once the jurisdictional error was discovered.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court with an extended deadline for filing the notice of appeal.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion regarding a construction lien.

The Honsbergers sought to discharge or reduce a lien registered by Homes by Hendriks Inc. The court previously reduced the lien but did not vacate it.

The parties could not agree on costs, so submissions were made.

The court awarded the Honsbergers $51,313.32 in costs, finding their offer to settle was reasonable and that their costs were not disproportionate.

The court declined to order costs against the principal of the plaintiff personally.

The Honsbergers moved to discharge or reduce a construction lien registered by Homes by Hendriks Inc. (HBH) against their property.

The court found that the date of last lienable work was a genuine issue requiring a trial and declined to discharge the lien.

However, the court reduced the lien amount by $145,121.47, finding that certain materials were not delivered and that a 20% management fee was not lienable.

The court clarified its jurisdiction to reduce a lien under section 35 of the Construction Act and provided guidance on the treatment of overhead and project management fees in lien claims.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a proposed class proceeding for delay pursuant to section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

They argued that the plaintiff had not filed a complete certification motion record or established a timetable within the first anniversary of the proceeding's commencement.

The plaintiff contended that extensive interlocutory proceedings related to a Mareva injunction, including timetables for affidavit exchange and cross-examinations, constituted "steps required to advance the proceeding." The court adopted a functional interpretation of section 29.1, finding that the injunction-related steps, which involved a deep dive into the merits and evidence relevant to certification, did indeed advance the proceeding.

Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claim of its policyholder, Farina Nazir, and the crossclaim of 2212478 Ontario Inc. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised could not be readily bifurcated from the main action and presented a serious prospect of inconsistent findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

The judge determined that a just adjudication required a complete understanding of the allegedly fraudulent transactions, which had not yet been fully discovered.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a rare procedure, reserved for the clearest of cases, and was not appropriate here due to the risks of delay, expense, inefficiency, and inconsistent findings.

The action was ordered to proceed to trial expeditiously.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded costs of the motion for reconsideration on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $2,389.95, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, payable by 6044402 NB Ltd. to Anouk Benzacar.

6044402 NB Ltd. ("604") brought a motion to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration of a previous decision (Benzacar v. Terk, 2023 ONCA 773) concerning its obligations in a garnishment proceeding. 604 sought to recalculate the amount payable to the sheriff, arguing for a lower sum based on new mathematical arguments.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding no arguable merit in the request, that it was an attempt to reargue matters already in issue during the original appeal, and that the interests of finality strongly favoured rejection, especially given 604's unsuccessful application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021, arguing it was ultra vires Ontario and infringed their rights to free expression and equality under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Act, finding its dominant purpose was to affirm and commemorate the Tamil-Ontarian community's experience, which falls within Ontario's power over local matters under s. 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court also dismissed the Charter claims, concluding the Act does not suppress expression or draw a discriminatory distinction against Sinhala-Buddhists.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a Mareva injunction freezing their cryptocurrency assets, which was initially granted without notice in a proposed class action alleging fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

The court found that the plaintiff had made full and frank disclosure and met the test to continue the injunction against the corporate defendants and one individual defendant, citing a strong prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation and a serious risk of asset dissipation.

The injunction was set aside for one individual defendant due to insufficient evidence of personal involvement.

The court also exercised its discretion to waive the undertaking for damages for the representative plaintiff, recognizing the public policy benefits of class actions.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The appellant, Anouk Benzacar, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the enforcement of a judgment debt against her former spouse, Ira Terk, through garnishment of debts owed by his associated corporations, 6044402 NB Ltd. and 4106971 Canada Inc. The motion judge had found the garnishee statements filed by the corporations, prepared by Terk, to be deficient but not null and void, thus limiting the garnishment.

The Court of Appeal found that 6044402 NB Ltd.'s garnishee statement was materially false and lacked reasonable justification, rendering it equivalent to no statement at all under Rule 60.08(17) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This entitled the appellant to an order against 6044402 NB Ltd. for the full amount stated in the notice of garnishment.

The appeal was allowed, and the order below was varied accordingly.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a single-purpose corporation formed to build a commercial dam.

The plaintiff's project failed after delays in obtaining location approval and the subsequent termination of its feed-in tariff contract.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets to pay costs and that the plaintiff failed to show a good chance of success on the merits to avoid the order.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in stages.

The moving party, Juan Guillermo Gutierrez, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of McEwen J. dated December 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, the Receiver, fixed at $5,000.

Following the approval of a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act, the successful applicant sought costs against the objecting creditors.

The objectors argued the applicant was disentitled to costs for failing to request them initially and that the quantum sought was excessive.

The court rejected the disentitlement argument, finding the objectors had notice that costs would be addressed in writing.

The court awarded $100,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount for proportionality, and ordered the costs payable jointly and severally by the objectors as they had pursued a common strategy.

The applicants, representing members of Ontario's Sinhalese diaspora, brought applications challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021.

They argued the Act was ultra vires the province and violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the Act is in pith and substance related to education, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The court further held that the Act does not restrict freedom of expression, nor does it create a discriminatory distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds.

This appeal concerned a failed residential property transaction due to substantial water damage occurring shortly before closing.

The purchasers (respondents) sued the vendors (appellants) for breach of the agreement of purchase and sale (APS), seeking return of their deposit and damages.

The vendors counterclaimed, alleging repudiation by the purchasers.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The motion judge found in favour of the purchasers, ruling that the damage was 'substantial' under s. 18 of the APS, entitling the purchasers to terminate, and that the vendors had not acted in good faith.

The vendors appealed, arguing procedural unfairness regarding the pleading of s. 18, errors in factual findings, and incorrect damages calculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings on s. 18 and good faith, but reduced the damages awarded by the cost of an engineering report.