No one appearing

The plaintiff sought default judgment against the defendants for alleged defaults on three lease agreements.

The motion was brought without notice and lacked proper evidentiary support, including unattached exhibits and outdated affidavit evidence regarding mitigation.

The court adjourned the motion, requiring the plaintiff to serve the defendants with updated materials, including a factum addressing damages, mitigation credits, and interest, and set a schedule for the defendants to respond.

The plaintiffs entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the defendant seller and provided a deposit to the defendant real estate brokerage.

The seller repudiated the agreement but refused to consent to the return of the deposit, forcing the plaintiffs to commence an action and bring a motion for summary judgment.

The seller eventually consented to the return of the deposit after the motion record was served.

The court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs against the seller due to his unreasonable conduct, but awarded no costs against the brokerage.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for theft and failure to comply with probation, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention in a secure forensic unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he represented a significant risk to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record amply supported the Board's conclusion given the appellant's serious acquired brain injury, psychiatric issues, and history of violence and aggression.

The plaintiff tenants brought a motion for an injunction after being locked out of their commercial premises by the landlord defendants for non-payment of rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the landlord had agreed to accept April rent in installments and subsequently demanded future rent, thereby waiving its right of forfeiture.

The court declared the termination of the lease unlawful, ordered the lease reinstated, and noted that even if the termination had been lawful, relief from forfeiture would have been granted given the unprecedented pandemic circumstances and the landlord's conduct.

The plaintiff landlord sought a Mareva injunction ex parte against the defendant indemnifier and her co-owning spouse to restrain the disposition of a residential property, alleging default on a commercial lease and a risk of asset dissipation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no "extraordinary urgency" to proceed ex parte, insufficient admissible evidence to establish a "serious risk of removal or dissipation of property," and that the balance of convenience favored dismissal, partly because the injunction would indirectly affect a party against whom no strong prima facie case was made and would function as an improper Certificate of Pending Litigation.

This addendum on costs addresses the request by 2181738 Ontario Inc. for substantial indemnity costs against 1382538 Ontario Inc. The main action involved 1382538 Ontario Inc.'s failure to pay the plaintiff for subcontract work, leading to 2181738 Ontario Inc.'s involvement due to Construction Lien Act holdback obligations.

The court considered factors under Rule 57, including time spent, result, complexity, and proportionality, as well as principles from *Boucher* and *Davies*.

An award of $8,245.18 was deemed reasonable and ordered to be paid by 1382538 Ontario Inc. to 2181738 Ontario Inc. within 30 days.

This motion concerned the approval of a Memorandum of Agreement between the receiver of the Norshield entities, appointed by the Ontario Superior Court, and the class representative of a Québec class action.

The agreement sought to facilitate the production of information from the receiver to the class representative for use in the Québec class action.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), a defendant in the Québec class action, opposed the motion, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to approve what amounted to a non-party discovery in a Québec proceeding.

The court found that RBC had standing to oppose the motion and dismissed the class representative's request, ruling that the Superior Court of Québec, as the class action judge, was the appropriate forum to determine the relevance and necessity of the information sought.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that directed his detention at a forensic psychiatric program.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, while the Hospital and Crown supported continued detention.

Duty counsel argued the Board erred by not giving meaningful consideration to a conditional discharge, suggesting the decision was based on hospital convenience.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion was not solely based on convenience but on a reasoned assessment that a detention order was the least onerous and restrictive disposition, necessary for the ability to quickly return the appellant to hospital if he decompensated and to approve his accommodation given his fluctuating insight into substance use and its impact on mental health.

The appellant abandoned his appeal against conviction before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The applicant sought to add the respondent's former counsel as parties to an application and compel them to disclose information regarding ongoing litigation pursuant to an assignment agreement.

The respondent had previously breached a court order to provide this information.

The court allowed the motion to add the law firms as parties, finding it legally tenable and necessary to adjudicate effectively.

The court ordered the law firms to disclose the factual information required by the assignment agreement, exercising its equitable jurisdiction to make orders against non-parties to prevent the facilitation of a party's defiance of a court order.

However, the court refused to order the disclosure of broader information protected by solicitor-client privilege, finding no implicit waiver of privilege in the assignment agreement.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's reasons manifestly insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, specifically noting a lack of engagement with issues of conditional discharge or expanded community passes.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing to consider these issues expeditiously.

The appellant pharmacy entered into an agreement for telemedicine services and signed an equipment lease.

The telemedicine provider defaulted, and the appellant discovered the lease contained a 'no cancellation' clause requiring continued payments to the respondent lessor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the 'no cancellation' clause unenforceable under the Tilden Rent-A-Car principle because the lessor failed to take reasonable measures to draw the harsh and oppressive term to the appellant's attention.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the mother brought a motion for the temporary care and custody of her child.

The child had been placed in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother after the mother was arrested and detained on criminal charges.

The court determined that the mother had 'charge' of the child at the time of the society's intervention, meaning the child must be returned to her unless a material change in circumstances required a change in custody in the child's best interests.

The court found that while the mother's detention was a material change, returning the child to the mother's care was in the child's best interests, as the society had previously been satisfied with her parenting and the child exhibited a need for the emotional security she provided.

The mother's motion was allowed.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Prior to the hearing of his appeal, the appellant died.

His counsel filed a notice of abatement.

The Court of Appeal applied the established principles regarding mootness and abatement, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify proceeding with the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as moot.

The applicant mother applied under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 to vary a 2015 Alberta child support order.

The original order imputed the respondent father's income at $65,000, but the applicant later discovered his actual income was higher in subsequent years.

The respondent did not appear or file responding materials.

The court granted the application, varying ongoing support and fixing arrears for both ongoing support and extraordinary expenses retroactively to 2016 based on the respondent's actual income.

The applicant mother applied under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 to vary a 2015 Alberta child support order.

The original order imputed the respondent father's income at $65,000, but the applicant later discovered his actual income was higher in subsequent years.

The respondent did not appear or file responding materials.

The court granted the application, varying ongoing support and fixing arrears for both ongoing support and extraordinary expenses retroactively to 2016 based on the respondent's actual income.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor for a corporate debt.

The defendant denied signing the guarantee and alternatively pleaded undue influence by her husband.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the bank failed to provide a proper evidential foundation.

The bank relied on affidavits from an employee with no personal knowledge, appending hearsay documents without establishing their admissibility.

The court held there were genuine issues for trial regarding the authenticity of the guarantee and whether the bank took reasonable steps to rebut the presumption of undue influence.

The plaintiff moved for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property she previously owned, alleging it was fraudulently transferred by the second mortgagee to a newly incorporated company under a power of sale.

The court found multiple 'badges of fraud', including a sale below market value, lack of public marketing, and a prior relationship between the parties.

Concluding there was a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land, the court granted the CPL and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was bitten in the face by a dog owned by the defendants.

The defendants were noted in default, and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial on affidavit evidence to assess damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff $37,500 in general damages for physical scarring and psychological trauma, $2,500 for future psychological care, and $5,461.43 for the OHIP subrogated claim.

The plaintiff's parents were each awarded $5,000 under the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

Costs were fixed at $16,000 on a partial indemnity basis.