No one appearing

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his motion to extinguish spousal support arrears and costs, and to be reimbursed for support paid.

He alleged the original support orders were based on the respondent's false claims and an incorrect premise about his business involvement.

The motion judge found no new evidence and no jurisdiction as the matter was finally adjudicated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that no new evidence was adduced, only additional case law, and that the spousal support issue had been finally resolved in prior proceedings, including a previous appeal.

The plaintiff in a putative class action sought leave to discontinue the action pursuant to s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The claim alleged that the defendants, including Emerge Canada Inc., violated working capital requirements and improperly pre-paid management fees.

The defendants were subsequently wound up, had no assets, and no insurance to satisfy a judgment.

The Class Proceedings Fund also denied funding for the action.

The court granted the motion for discontinuance, finding that the class would not be prejudiced given the lack of recovery prospects and the remaining limitation period for individual claims.

A notice plan for putative class members was approved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of a business.

The deceased purchaser relied on false financial statements and inventory representations provided by the defendants, leading to the business's failure and her subsequent suicide.

The court found the defendants liable based on deemed admissions and expert evidence, awarding $448,474 in damages and $45,000 in costs.

The plaintiff, A.J. Lanzarotta Wholesale Fruits & Vegetables Ltd., sought judgment against the defendants (United Farmers, 2773125 Ontario Inc., Janet Michelle Brunton, and Wayne D. King) in an uncontested trial after their statement of defence was struck.

The action was grounded in fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit related to the defendants' scheme to obtain large quantities of food products on credit.

The court found the defendants liable for civil fraud, pierced the corporate veil to hold the individual defendants personally liable, and awarded compensatory damages for the cost of goods sold and various consequential losses, but not lost profits.

Punitive damages were also awarded against the individual defendants, and the judgment was declared to survive bankruptcy.

The applicant estate trustee sought directions regarding the interpretation of a will where a named beneficiary predeceased the testator.

The will directed the residue to be distributed 'per capita' and explicitly defined it as the antithesis of 'per stirpes'.

The court found this indicated a contrary intention to the anti-lapse provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court determined the gift was not a class gift and therefore the predeceased beneficiary's share lapsed and must be distributed on an intestacy.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to make an equalization payment to the husband.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by ordering such a payment in an uncontested trial where the respondent husband provided no financial disclosure and never requested equalization.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ordering an equalization payment without an adequate factual basis due to the respondent's complete failure to disclose financial information.

The court emphasized the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law proceedings and set aside the equalization order, directing that no equalization payment was owing and the appellant was entitled to the full proceeds of the matrimonial home sale.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice order concerning monthly access to children.

The Society argued that the OCJ lacked jurisdiction to entertain an enforcement motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules after a final order had been made, contending that the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 was a complete code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the OCJ retained jurisdiction to enforce its orders, as the definition of "case" in the Family Law Rules explicitly includes "enforcements," and requiring a new proceeding for enforcement would contradict the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Superior Court judge and addressed procedural fairness concerns.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant in 2022 but later discovered an error in the defendant's corporate number.

After successfully amending the title of proceedings, the plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to vary the 2022 default judgment to reflect the correct corporate number.

The court found the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence and the defendant suffered no prejudice.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after being summarily terminated without cause following 18.5 years of service as Vice President.

The defendant failed to attend the trial, and its pleadings were struck.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to a 24-month common law notice period.

Additionally, the court awarded $50,000 in aggravated damages and $50,000 in punitive damages due to the defendant's bad faith, which included making defamatory statements, accusing the plaintiff of criminality, and pursuing a baseless counterclaim.

The applicant sought to remove his sister as co-estate trustee of their late father's estate and to order her to vacate the estate's residential property.

The respondent had an option under the will to purchase the property at fair market value but refused to accept the appraised value or vacate the property, living there rent-free.

The court found the respondent's option to purchase had expired and that she was in a conflict of interest that prevented the proper administration of the estate.

The court removed the respondent as estate trustee, vested the estate assets in the applicant as sole trustee, and ordered the respondent to provide vacant possession of the property.

The applicant sought to be appointed as guardian of property and person for her 80-year-old grandmother, who was suspected of having dementia.

The application could not be heard on its merits due to late filing of materials and a lack of sufficient information regarding the respondent's assets.

The court adjourned the hearing, suspended the existing Power of Attorney, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as temporary guardian of property to investigate the respondent's financial affairs.

The applicant, a federal election candidate, sought an extension to file his electoral campaign return under s. 477.68 of the Canada Elections Act, having missed statutory deadlines.

He also sought relief from the consequences of non-compliance under s. 477.7 of the Act.

The court determined it lacked the power to extend the deadline for bringing the s. 477.68 application, aligning with recent jurisprudence that statutory deadlines require express parliamentary discretion for extension.

However, the court granted relief under s. 477.7, finding the applicant was unaware of his official agent's failure to file the return on time and that the agent-designate took reasonable steps to rectify the situation once discovered.

The court directed the Chief Electoral Officer to accept the return as if filed by the deadline, with no costs awarded.

The proposed litigation administrator for the deceased plaintiff, Hanadi Mohammed, brought a motion seeking an order to continue the action, a one-year extension for service of the statement of claim, and leave to amend the statement of claim.

The action was commenced after the plaintiff's death and after the two-year anniversary of the motor vehicle collision.

The motion was brought without notice to the defendants.

The court found several deficiencies in the evidence, including a lack of explanation for commencing the action in the deceased's name, delay in bringing the motion, insufficient evidence regarding notice to defendants and potential prejudice, and the absence of a draft amended statement of claim.

Consequently, the motion was adjourned to an oral hearing and ordered to be brought on notice to the defendants, with the action remaining stayed under Rule 9.03(6).

The defendant, TD Canada Trust, requested an administrative dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the plaintiff's statement of claim to have significant deficiencies and hallmarks of frivolous litigation.

However, recognizing that dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 is a "blunt instrument" and considering the plaintiff is self-represented, the court declined to dismiss the action immediately.

Instead, it directed a process for the self-represented plaintiff to file written submissions, followed by responses from the defendants, before a final determination on whether to dismiss the action in its entirety.

The action was stayed pending this process.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order against the defendants, alleging a fraudulent investment scheme.

The defendants, including Richard Nicholson and his company NWR Financial Group, allegedly induced the plaintiffs to invest USD $670,000 in a non-existent hedge fund, Legacy Investors Group Inc., promising high returns.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, evidence of asset dissipation by Nicholson (e.g., luxury purchases, sale of home), and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction to preserve assets.

The court also granted the Norwich order, finding that the five factors for disclosure from non-party financial institutions were met, as they were the only practical source of information regarding the flow of funds.

This endorsement addresses an application by Stephen Vriend to be appointed guardian of property and person for his mother, Ellen Charlotte Vriend, who suffers from severe dementia.

The court granted the guardianship of the person, approving the proposed Guardianship Plan.

However, the application for guardianship of property was adjourned due to significant potential conflicts of interest arising from Stephen's role as Estate Trustee for Ellen's deceased husband's estate, from which Ellen is a major beneficiary.

The court also addressed various procedural deficiencies, including improper service on Ellen's siblings and the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), and non-compliance with court document formatting rules.

The PGT was ordered to arrange independent legal representation for Ellen to protect her interests regarding the property guardianship.

The plaintiffs, Griffon Integrated Security Technologies Inc. and Randall Sheppard, brought a motion for judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendants' pleadings were struck and they were noted in default.

The court found the contract between the parties was an employment contract and awarded the plaintiffs damages for breach of contract (20 months' pay in lieu of notice), pre-judgment interest, substantial indemnity costs, and punitive damages.

The court also lifted a stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for the purpose of granting judgment and found the individual defendant, R. Michael Martin, jointly and severally liable by piercing the corporate veil due to his direct involvement in the wrongful acts and the undefended nature of the action.

The applicant sought to enforce an arbitral award requiring the respondent to sell shares to the applicant.

A third-party judgment creditor of the respondent opposed the application, arguing her writ of seizure and sale gave her a prior interest in the shares.

The court held that under section 50(3) of the Arbitration Act, enforcement is mandatory unless specific exceptions apply.

Furthermore, applying equitable principles, the respondent had no remaining interest in the shares to which the writ could attach once the applicant's contractual right to acquire them arose.

The arbitral award was enforced.

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion to compel a representative of the defendant developer to answer discovery questions about whether other purchasers had complained of being misled into buying semi-detached homes instead of detached homes.

The court found the questions relevant to the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation and unilateral mistake, as the existence of similar complaints would make her claim more likely to be true and could shed light on the defendant's knowledge.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to answer the questions.

The defendants, Shukri Ali Ali and The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Yassin Aden Osman, did not oppose the motion and failed to appear.

The court found that the plaintiff's default was intentional and contumelious, demonstrating disrespect for the court process through serial violations of court orders and non-attendance.

Additionally, the delay was found to be inordinate and inexcusable, giving rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible, particularly due to the loss of witnesses and inability to inspect the vehicle.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the action against all defendants and awarding costs to the moving defendants.