Onofrio Ferlisi

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and to find the defendants in civil contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior order for documentary production.

The court granted the extension of time on consent.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no evidence that the defendants acted in defiance of the order, as they had produced documents and provided reasons for not producing others.

The court emphasized that civil contempt is a remedy of last resort and other adequate remedies were available to the plaintiff.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs decision issued two and a half years after his action was dismissed on summary judgment.

He argued the delay caused him injustice and that the costs were too high.

The Court of Appeal denied an adjournment and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the costs decision was conventional, the amounts were not disproportionate, and the delay itself did not constitute an error in principle.

The plaintiffs (Lenders) brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendants (a car dealership, a related corporation, and its controlling mind).

The Lenders alleged a massive fraud scheme where the dealership obtained auto loans from them under false pretenses, as no automobiles were actually sold or secured.

The motion focused on 16 specific fraudulent transactions, seeking judgment in contract and fraud, and to pierce the corporate veil to hold the controlling mind personally liable.

The court found overwhelming evidence of fraud and breach of contract by the Dealer and its controlling mind, who failed to provide any substantive defense.

The court granted partial summary judgment, piercing the corporate veil due to the controlling mind's use of the corporation for wrongful actions, and limited its findings to the 16 transactions to avoid inconsistent findings with the broader ongoing litigation.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against a mortgage broker and lender.

The appellant sought to refinance commercial properties he believed were worth $1.2 million with a $600,000 mortgage.

Two appraisers declined to complete appraisals at the requested valuation.

The lender eventually provided an appraisal showing a value of $600,000-$665,000 and offered revised financing of $390,000, which the appellant rejected.

The motion judge found no cause of action because the property was owned by a corporation, not the appellant, and no damages were caused by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant bank appealed an interlocutory order adjourning its summary judgment motion.

The motion judge had adjourned the motion to hear oral evidence regarding whether the bank knew or should have known that the respondent's brother was using a line of credit, secured by the respondent's condominium, for his own benefit contrary to a trust agreement.

The appellant argued that under Hryniak v. Mauldin, the motion judge was required to determine if there was a genuine issue for trial based solely on the paper record before ordering oral evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Hryniak does not restrict a motion judge's inherent equitable jurisdiction to adjourn a motion and hear oral evidence to determine if a genuine issue for trial exists.

In a complex Commercial List case management proceeding involving multiple condominium corporations, lenders, and other parties arising from alleged fraud related to loans arranged for condominium corporations, the court addressed whether a previously scheduled separate hearing of a threshold issue should proceed.

The threshold issue concerned whether certain loans were enforceable against the condominium corporations.

Several parties withdrew their earlier consent to bifurcate the proceedings under Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, absent unanimous consent, it lacked jurisdiction to compel a separate hearing of the threshold issue and therefore cancelled the proposed hearing.

The court instead directed that the actions proceed expeditiously to a consolidated trial with a structured discovery process and encouraged mediation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his counterclaim and the judgment against him regarding mortgage arrears.

He argued that he did not receive a demand letter, was entitled to notice under the Family Law Act, and that his counterclaim should not have been dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was aware of the arrears, his existence was unknown when the action commenced, and the counterclaim disclosed no cause of action.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent Bank had not misrepresented whether their mortgage was life insured.

At the outset of the appeal, an agent for the appellants' counsel requested an adjournment due to counsel's medical condition.

The Court of Appeal denied the adjournment, noting the age of the appeal, the unsatisfactory form of the request, and the prejudice to the respondent.

On the merits, the Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the appellants knew the mortgage was not life insured.

The appeal was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the respondent.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal, the court determined the costs to be awarded to the successful defendants.

The court reviewed the principles for fixing costs under the new costs grid and the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding no compelling reasons for substantial indemnity, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to the various defendants, totalling $16,158.08.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision striking out his statement of claim, which sought damages for alleged Charter violations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the mandatory test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as he did not demonstrate conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's order.