No one appearing

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The plaintiff bank moved for default judgment against the defendants for civil fraud in obtaining small business loans.

The individual defendant submitted a fictitious invoice for equipment that was never purchased and transferred the loan proceeds to various numbered companies.

Shortly after the bank began investigating, the defendant transferred his interest in his home to his spouse for no consideration.

The court found the defendant liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, awarded the outstanding loan amount plus $150,000 in punitive damages, and voided the property transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of its intention to dismiss five related proceedings commenced by the plaintiff in 2005 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff failed to respond to the notice.

The court found the pleadings to be incomprehensible, repetitive, and abusive, naming dozens of defendants with no material facts against some.

The court dismissed all five actions for being an abuse of process and for excessive delay.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of its intention to dismiss five related proceedings commenced by the plaintiff in 2005 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff failed to respond to the notice.

The court found the pleadings to be incomprehensible, repetitive, and abusive, naming dozens of defendants with no material facts against some.

The court dismissed all five actions for being an abuse of process and for excessive delay.

The plaintiff sued her gynecologist for medical malpractice after suffering a ureteric injury during a laparoscopic hysterectomy.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to detect the injury during surgery and in failing to consider the possibility of a ureteric injury and consult a urologist when the plaintiff presented with post-operative complications.

The court found no breach of the standard of care during the surgery, as the injury was likely a thermal ischemic injury that was not visually observable.

While the court found the defendant breached the standard of care by failing to consider a ureteric injury and consult a urologist post-operatively, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

The court concluded that earlier urological intervention would not have altered the plaintiff's medical outcome or prevented the need for subsequent repair surgery.

The parties were scheduled for a four-hour special appointment hearing for a motion brought by the defendant.

Despite filing a Certificate of Readiness, the parties failed to adhere to the timetable and the matter was not ready to proceed.

The court noted that the failure to bring the matter forward earlier resulted in wasted court time.

As a consequence, the court adjourned the motion to a speak-to date and ordered that no new hearing date would be scheduled until counsel can confirm that all preparatory steps are complete.

The plaintiff sought default judgment arising from allegations of sexual abuse and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants from 1978 to 1983.

The defendants failed to participate in the litigation process, leading to an uncontested trial on liability and damages.

The court found the defendants liable for sexual battery and breach of fiduciary duty.

Damages were assessed for general and aggravated damages, future care costs, and past care costs.

The court applied the "crumbling skull" rule, reducing the damage award by 25% due to the plaintiff's pre-existing psychological conditions from prior abuse.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest.

The applicants sought a declaration that their late parents acquired possessory title to a parcel of land adjacent to their home through adverse possession.

The disputed property was originally part of a larger family lot, half of which the parents purchased in 1962.

The court found that while the parents had actual possession of the disputed land since the 1960s, they did not form the intention to exclude the legal owners until a family dispute arose in 1989.

From 1989 onwards, the parents openly claimed ownership and the legal owners failed to take action within the ten-year limitation period.

The court granted the application, finding possessory title was established before the land was converted to the Land Titles system in 1999.

A non-party to a family law proceeding filed two motions for leave to appeal previous endorsements that had denied him standing and restricted his contact with the children.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the non-party lacked standing, failed to properly serve the parties, and that the motions constituted an abuse of process.

The court ordered that the non-party must obtain leave before filing any further documents in the proceeding.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former investment advisor and his corporate entities for civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.

The defendants had convinced the unsophisticated plaintiffs to withdraw $350,000 from their RRSPs for a fictitious start-up investment, but instead misappropriated the funds for their own benefit, including purchasing a heavily leveraged property.

The court granted default judgment, awarding compensatory damages that accounted for the lost funds and tax consequences, $75,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' highly reprehensible conduct, and $92,000 in full indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious abuse of the litigation process.

The plaintiff sought an assessment of damages after the defendant was noted in default for failing to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff sustained serious physical and psychological injuries, including fractured ribs and a punctured lung, when she was thrown from a Jet Ski negligently operated by the defendant.

The court assessed non-pecuniary damages, pecuniary damages for personal care and future medical expenses, and a subrogated claim, awarding a total of $129,939.19 plus costs.

The Crown brought an application for directions regarding the disclosure of plea correspondence between the Crown and a former co-accused who pleaded guilty and is expected to testify at the remaining accused's trial.

The former co-accused had objected to disclosure on the basis of settlement privilege.

The court held that the plea correspondence is relevant to the witness's credibility and is not protected by solicitor-client or settlement privilege, as it is not being used against the former co-accused.

The court ordered the Crown to disclose the plea correspondence to the remaining accused.

The respondents brought an unopposed motion to distribute the residue of their late father's estate and to require the applicant estate trustee to repay certain amounts to the estate.

The court found that the estate trustee had failed to properly administer the estate, resulting in unnecessary costs and delays.

The court ordered the estate trustee to reimburse the estate for improper expenses, denied her claim for trustee compensation, and directed the distribution of the remaining funds with setoffs against the estate trustee's share for her liabilities and previous costs awards.

The defendant moved without notice for default judgment on its counterclaim after the plaintiff failed to defend and its claim was struck.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the relief sought in the draft judgment (declarations regarding property and assets) did not match the prayer for relief in the counterclaim (damages).

The court granted the defendant leave to amend its counterclaim but ordered no further steps be taken without court order due to ongoing case management of related bankruptcy proceedings.

The plaintiffs, an immigration consultant and his company, brought an action for defamation against former clients who posted over 60 negative and inflammatory online reviews after their retainer was terminated.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the posts defamatory and awarded $200,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages.

The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further defamatory statements and ordered them to remove the existing posts.

The action against one defendant, who was not proven to be responsible for the posts, was dismissed.

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time orders, and child support for their three-year-old child.

The court found a history of family violence and that the respondent had minimal involvement in the child's life.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, the right to travel without consent, and ordered the respondent to pay ongoing and retroactive child support based on an imputed annual income of $43,750.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for an unprovoked assault at a stag-and-doe party that resulted in a T11 compression fracture.

The defendant failed to defend the action and was noted in default.

The court found the defendant liable for battery and assessed damages, awarding $85,000 in non-pecuniary general damages, $17,585 for past income loss, $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and $21,640 for future care costs, totaling $177,248.60.

The applicant father brought an urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order against the respondent mother after she forcibly removed the children from their school in violation of a parenting order.

The court found a legitimate basis for the father's fear for the children's safety and granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the mother from attending within 150 meters of the school.

The remainder of the motion, including a restraining order in respect of the father, was adjourned as urgency was not established.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for defamatory comments posted on Instagram, which falsely claimed the plaintiff was involved in violence against women.

The defendant failed to file a defence and was noted in default.

After multiple orders regarding service of the motion record, the defendant still did not respond.

The court granted default judgment, awarding $140,000 in damages for defamation and $1,413.11 in costs.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant did not file a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

The court found the defendant breached the contract to sell her home and awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in damages, representing the difference between the purchase price and the property's appraised value on the closing date.

The plaintiff was also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.