No one appearing

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for breach of loan and general security agreements, seeking to repossess farm equipment.

The defendants did not defend the action or attend the motion.

The plaintiff sought an interim order prohibiting the defendants from disposing of or encumbering the equipment while the decision on default judgment was under reserve.

The court granted the interim order, finding the plaintiff had a reasonable basis for concern that the equipment might be alienated or hidden.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court order that dismissed his appeal proceedings under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The interveners brought a motion under Rule 2.1 to dismiss the motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the moving party raised no arguable grounds of appeal and was attempting to relitigate matters decided years earlier.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to register a default judgment obtained in Alberta against the respondent for unpaid electrical work.

The respondent, who was served in Ontario, did not defend the Alberta action and did not appear at this application.

The court found that the Alberta court had jurisdiction, the respondent carried on business in Alberta, and no circumstances existed under section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act to prevent registration.

The application was granted and the judgment was ordered registered in Ontario.

The plaintiffs and certain defendants consented to vary a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The consent order unfreezes three bank accounts belonging to the consenting defendants and directs the transfer of funds from one account to the plaintiffs' solicitor's trust account, to be held pending further order or written consent.

The court granted the order as requested.

The applicants, minor children of the deceased, brought a motion for an interim preservation order requiring the deceased's estranged spouse to pay $25,000 in life insurance proceeds into court pending the determination of their dependant support application.

The court applied the three-part test for interim preservation under Rule 45.02 and found the applicants established a strong prima facie case that the estate assets were inadequate for their support.

The motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay the funds into court and pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her failure to respond.

In a child protection proceeding involving four children, a non-party community member brought a motion to be added as a party to put forward a plan of care.

The Children's Aid Society did not consent but did not oppose the motion.

Applying the five-part test from Highland Shores CAS, the court found that the non-party had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and that her addition was necessary to determine the issues and in the children's best interests.

The motion was granted and the non-party was added as a respondent.

The applicant sought a declaration that the eastern boundary of his property was governed by an 1887 plan of subdivision rather than a conflicting 1888 plan.

The discrepancy created an overlap area.

The court found that the historical fence line, previous surveys, and the parties' use of the properties all aligned with the 1887 plan.

The court granted the declaration, noting that the applicant had also established possessory title through adverse possession of the overlap area prior to the properties' conversion to the Land Titles system.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement reached on behalf of six minor grandchildren regarding claims arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision involving their grandparents.

The claims were made pursuant to s. 61 of the Family Law Act.

The court found the settlement, which allocated $18,168.15 net to each minor plaintiff, to be in their best interests and approved it.

The court also approved the solicitor-client account, ordered substituted service on the defendant estate's insurer, and granted leave to amend the title of proceeding to correct a misnomer.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a residential property after the defendant vendor failed to close the transaction due to an inability to discharge two mortgages.

The mortgages were subsequently assigned to a third party who opposed the CPL and sought to sell the property under power of sale.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the balance of equities under the Dhunna factors did not favour granting the CPL.

The plaintiff failed to prove the property was unique, damages were an adequate remedy, and the third-party mortgagee would suffer greater prejudice if the CPL were granted.

The plaintiff sought judgment for defamation and damages, as well as the conclusion of contempt proceedings against the defendants.

The court found that the defamation allegations were properly pleaded and granted judgment against the defendants based on previous findings.

The plaintiff was awarded $41,600 in special damages for loss of fee income.

The contempt proceedings were adjourned due to the defendants' failure to appear, and a bench warrant was issued for their arrest with discretion.

The defendant hospital and nurses brought a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice action.

The court found that the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden for summary judgment because they did not file expert evidence establishing they met the standard of care.

However, the court dismissed the action under Rule 15.04 because the plaintiff failed to appoint a new lawyer or file a notice of intention to act in person for over 18 months after his former lawyer was removed from the record.

The applicants sold a residential property to the respondent, who failed to close the transaction after multiple extensions.

The applicants subsequently resold the property in a falling market for a substantially lower price and sought damages for the difference in purchase price and carrying costs.

The court awarded damages of $817,756.08, compensating the applicants for the drop in property value and carrying costs, but excluded claims for real estate commissions not paid on the original transaction and renegotiated interest.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the infant plaintiff's derivative claim under the Family Law Act.

The main injury claim of the infant's father had previously been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to appoint new counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person.

The court held that a derivative claim cannot continue if the primary plaintiff's claim has been dismissed.

The motion was granted and the infant plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The applicant, a candidate in the 2019 federal election, applied for relief under s. 477.7 of the Canada Elections Act from the consequences of the late filing of his electoral campaign return.

The applicant's official agent failed to file the return by the deadline and subsequently resigned and passed away.

The court found that the late filing occurred without the applicant's knowledge or acquiescence, satisfying the criteria under s. 477.7(a).

The application was granted, relieving the applicant from the consequences of the late filing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment in an action arising from a failed $7.25 million commercial real estate transaction.

The defendants failed to close due to lack of financing but argued the agreement was invalid and the seller's closing documents were deficient.

The court found the matter appropriate for summary judgment on liability but declined to grant partial summary judgment for the deposit, as the defendants' request for relief from forfeiture was intertwined with the overall damages claim.

The court granted summary judgment on liability in favour of the corporate plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the valid agreement.

The individual plaintiffs' claims were dismissed for lack of standing as they were not parties to the contract.

The appellants failed to comply with a court order requiring them to post security for costs of the trial and appeal by a specified deadline.

Despite their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and attempts to obtain a stay of the order, the security was not posted.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the security for costs order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, as the original endorsement allowed for consolidation but the draft order did not.

The defendants consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding it necessary to vary the order to conform with the original endorsement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary a previous order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, conforming with the original endorsement.

The court granted the motion and varied the order to provide for consolidation.

The plaintiff, a minor, suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a boating accident when the tube he was being towed on struck another boat.

The plaintiff's father, who was operating the boat, was noted in default.

The court found the father negligent and reckless, but concluded he did not have knowledge that the loss would probably result, meaning the $1,000,000 liability cap under the Marine Liability Act applied.

Damages were assessed well in excess of the cap, but recovery was limited to $1,000,000 in aggregate for the minor and his mother.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a fraud recovery case following the defendants' guilty pleas in a related criminal matter.

The defendant failed to attend a scheduled case conference to establish a timetable for the motion.

The court proceeded in the defendant's absence and established a timetable for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums leading up to the summary judgment motion hearing.