Not represented

The applicant, Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, sought an interlocutory injunction without notice to prevent protests within 100 metres of its temple.

The temple was scheduled to host a consular camp for elderly Indian nationals to obtain Life Certificates, which are essential for their state pensions.

Previous similar events at other temples had been disrupted by violent clashes between pro-Khalistan Sikh nationalists and pro-India counter-protesters, leading to injuries and property damage.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald and American Cyanamid test for interlocutory injunctions, with the elevated standard for cases involving freedom of expression.

It found a serious issue, irreparable harm to pensioners and congregants if the event was disrupted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The court also determined there was a high probability of harm based on past incidents and threats.

The injunction was granted, establishing a 100-metre perimeter to protect participants and congregants while allowing protesters to express their views from a distance.

The plaintiff, GTA Fill Earthworks Inc., sought damages for breaches of verbal contracts against the defendants, Anthony Ulbrick and 2611635 Ontario Corporation.

The defendants were noted in default, leading to an undefended trial to assess liability and damages.

The court found Mr. Ulbrick liable for various breaches, including failure to pay a subcontractor, misdirection of invoices, and overpayment.

The corporate defendant was found jointly and severally liable for unjust enrichment related to the misdirected invoices.

The court also awarded punitive damages against both defendants for their deliberate and concealed misconduct.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant tenant for breach of a lease agreement.

The defendant was noted in default for failing to defend the proceeding.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiff, finding liability based on the deemed admissions in the Statement of Claim and supporting evidence.

Damages were awarded for arrears of rent and loss of bargain for the unexpired term of the lease, totaling $450,528.14, plus interest and costs.

The court was satisfied that the landlord had made reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages.

The plaintiff, 620369 Ontario Inc., sought default judgment against the defendants, Michael Latimer and Jodi Latimer, for unpaid building materials.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the admitted facts supported judgment based on contractual agreements and the Construction Act, including a statutory trust.

The court also addressed the high interest rate and awarded partial indemnity costs, declining substantial indemnity costs due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The plaintiffs, 542491 Ontario Limited and Donald Foster, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, 8240631 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Innovation CLIC, after the defendant's statement of defence was struck and it was noted in default.

The court found that while the defendant was deemed to admit the facts in the statement of claim, the plaintiffs still needed to prove their legal entitlement to judgment and damages.

The court awarded partial damages of $79,745.15 for unpaid commissions but found deficiencies in the evidence regarding wrongful dismissal damages and the nature of the employment/contractor relationship, directing these remaining issues to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff, LH North Ltd., brought a motion for assessment of damages against the defendant, Albert Building Industries Inc. O/A Betontec Precast Products, after the defendant withdrew its defence and was noted in default.

The dispute arose from a commercial contract for precast concrete products for a bridge rehabilitation project, where Betontec failed to provide CSA-approved materials as agreed, leading to breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

This caused significant delays and additional costs for LH North Ltd. The court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for the increased cost of replacement materials, standby costs, demobilization/remobilization, and MTO delay penalties, along with prejudgment interest and costs.

The co-defendants Nathan Moore and Tracy Moore brought a motion for substitute service of their Statement of Defence, Crossclaim, Counterclaim, and Jury Notice on their co-defendant Charlie Johnston.

Despite multiple unsuccessful attempts at personal service and alternative service under Rule 16.03, the court found that Johnston was effectively evading service.

The motion was granted, permitting substitute service by regular post to his father's residence and his own property, as this method was deemed likely to bring the pleading to his attention.

The court also clarified that a formal time extension for service was unnecessary under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought an extension of time to set aside a prior order that had denied him an extension of time to seek leave to appeal two Superior Court costs decisions.

The applicant cited ignorance of proper procedures, a mistaken belief about COVID-19 suspensions, and unhelpful legal counsel as reasons for the delay.

The respondents did not participate in the motion.

The court, applying the factors for granting an extension of time, acknowledged the applicant's explanation for delay but found significant prejudice to the unrepresented respondents due to the elapsed time and potential for further costs.

Furthermore, the court determined that the underlying costs issue, stemming from an arbitration where the applicant failed to claim full costs, lacked sufficient merit for an appeal, as parties are expected to present their entire claim, including costs, during arbitration.

Consequently, the motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a second mortgage on a residential property.

The mortgagor was noted in default, and the guarantor, who was self-represented, admitted the amount owing in her statement of defence.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, granted judgment for the outstanding principal, interest, and fees totaling $492,013.20, and ordered the defendants to deliver possession of the property.

The court delayed the issuance of the judgment to allow the guarantor time to arrange mortgage refinancing.

The plaintiff, an unpaid trade supplier, brought a motion for default judgment against two defendants (ATD Contracting and Justin Rubatscher).

While the amount owed by ATD Contracting was adequately established, the court found insufficient evidence to grant judgment on the guarantee (due to the guarantee's effective date), interest calculations (conflicting rates and start dates), and trust remedies (lack of foundational evidence regarding funds received under the Construction Act).

The court declined to grant partial judgment, citing strong guidance from the Court of Appeal against it, and instead directed the matter to proceed by way of a viva voce hearing to address the evidentiary gaps and allow the case against all defendants, including a third defendant subject to bankruptcy proceedings, to be heard concurrently.

The corporate and personal plaintiffs sought default judgment against multiple unidentified defendants (identified by pseudonyms) for defamatory statements posted on an investment website.

The court addressed the novel issue of jurisdiction over unidentified defendants, affirming that judgment in personam can be granted if substituted service is reasonably expected to bring proceedings to their attention.

Damages, including general, aggravated, and punitive damages, were assessed individually against each defaulting defendant for each plaintiff, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded due to the defendants' abusive conduct in failing to respond.

The Palmigiani defendants successfully requested an adjournment of the trial date.

A telephone case conference was subsequently held to schedule a new trial date and address the plaintiffs' request for costs thrown away.

The court found that there was minimal wasted trial preparation given the new trial date.

The Palmigiani defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs $2,100 all-inclusive for costs thrown away and trial scheduling preparation.

Neighbouring property owners disputed ownership and use of three narrow strips of land including a shared driveway, a storage area, and a backyard strip.

The plaintiffs claimed adverse possession and alternatively an easement under the doctrine of lost modern grant.

The court held that adverse possession failed for the driveway and storage area because the plaintiffs’ use was not inconsistent with the true owner’s use and their claimed mistaken belief of ownership was not credible.

However, adverse possession succeeded for a backyard strip where a fence had been erected under a mutual mistake as to the boundary.

The court also recognized a prescriptive easement over the driveway under the doctrine of lost modern grant, permitting parking and related maintenance rights.

Following a trial decision, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought $74,612.14 all-inclusive, relying in part on an offer to settle that triggered substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

One defendant conceded the entitlement to substantial indemnity costs from that date, while another provided no submissions on costs and a corporate defendant did not participate in the trial.

The court considered the conduct of the participating defendants, including late concessions that prolonged the trial and required unnecessary witnesses.

Balancing the relevant considerations, the court fixed the plaintiff’s costs at $65,000 all-inclusive against the individual defendants.

The moving party sought costs after bringing a motion to dismiss the action against it in a motor vehicle negligence claim.

The plaintiff had initially included the moving party as a defendant due to a potential vicarious liability theory but indicated willingness to discontinue once insurers confirmed that dismissal would not prejudice coverage claims.

The court found the plaintiff acted reasonably and did not prolong the proceedings.

However, the court concluded that one insurer’s delay in consenting contributed to additional procedural steps.

Costs were awarded to the moving party on a partial indemnity basis and apportioned primarily against that insurer.