Papageorgiou

The defendants brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a medical negligence action involving an aeromedical transport.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants' negligence caused a sciatic nerve injury resulting in the amputation of the plaintiff's leg.

The defendants argued the case was too complex for a jury due to the number of experts, conflicting opinions on the standard of care, and pre-existing conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a 'wait and see' approach, finding that it was premature to strike the jury notice before a trial date was set and the actual contested issues were narrowed.

The defendant requested an order under Rule 2.1.01(6) to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's claim alleged that the defendants facilitated a fake mortgage approval letter for a pre-construction property purchase.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding that the claim did not have the hallmarks of a vexatious pleading and that issues regarding limitation periods, damages, and the plaintiff's alleged participation in the fraud required full argument rather than summary dismissal.

Following the dismissal of its application to prevent the re-leasing of disputed lands, the applicant condominium corporation argued it should be relieved of costs because the matter was in the public interest and involved consumer protection.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that condominium corporations are subject to the standard costs regime.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, declining to award substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted monetary offer to settle because the application sought non-monetary relief.

Costs were fixed at $58,655.44 for two respondents and $35,008.44 for the third.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation and conversion.

The defendants, retained to manage the plaintiffs' tax filings and remittances, misappropriated funds intended for the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court found liability based on deemed admissions and awarded $197,199.24 in general and special damages.

The claim for punitive damages was denied as there was no independent actionable wrong.

The applicant sought to register a default judgment of $448,459.15 USD obtained in the Superior Court of California against the respondent.

The respondent did not file a Notice of Appearance or defend the application.

The court found a real and substantial connection between the dispute and California, as the respondent had solicited business and entered into agreements there.

Finding no defences of fraud, public policy, or lack of natural justice applicable, the court granted the order to enforce the foreign judgment.

The applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, brought a motion to appoint an administrator under s. 131 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

They alleged severe mismanagement by the condominium board, including failure to hold meetings, underfunding the reserve fund, and neglecting repairs.

The court found substantial evidence of mismanagement and non-compliance with the Act.

However, noting the recent hiring of an experienced property manager, a new budget, and a special assessment to address repairs, the court dismissed the motion to avoid the significant costs of an administrator, allowing the board a chance to improve governance.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicants returning to court if sufficient progress is not made by January 1, 2025.

The plaintiff, a health services business, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against two former part-time employees (a chiropractor and a physiotherapist) and their new competing business.

The plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of confidential information, and breach of restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants were fiduciaries or that the restrictive covenants were enforceable.

Although there was a substantial issue to be tried regarding the breach of confidence, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as damages could be quantified monetarily, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7 for approval of a $5,000 settlement for a minor who slipped and fell on a hotel pool deck.

The proposed distribution included $1,500 to the minor, $2,500 for legal disbursements, and $1,000 to the litigation guardian for expenses.

The court found the materials deficient because they lacked legal authority or evidence supporting the $1,000 payment to the litigation guardian.

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide the missing materials within 14 days, failing which the motion would be dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim parenting schedule to increase his overnight parenting time with the parties' 20-month-old twins and to permit him to enroll them in daycare.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing severe health concerns for one of the twins who was immunocompromised following a lengthy hospitalization for meningoencephalitis.

The court dismissed the father's primary requests, finding no compelling reason to change the status quo and noting that daycare posed an unacceptable health risk at this time.

The court ordered an alternative schedule proposed by the mother and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following the breakdown of their common-law relationship, the parties disputed ownership of two properties.

The plaintiff sought a 50% interest in a commercial property registered to the defendant's corporation, while the defendant sought a 50% interest in a residential property registered to the plaintiff.

The court found the plaintiff contributed 50% to the commercial property and awarded her a half interest via resulting trust.

The court dismissed the defendant's claims to the residential property, finding he made no contributions and fabricated invoices to improperly obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The plaintiff was awarded $241,000 in damages for the improper CPL and $100,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's malicious litigation conduct.

The plaintiff sought a last-minute adjournment of a trial scheduled for May 27, 2024, after retaining new counsel on the morning of trial.

The plaintiff had previously been ordered to proceed peremptorily after his former counsel was removed from the record.

The court applied the Khimji factors and denied the adjournment, finding significant prejudice to the defendant, who had been waiting for trial since 2022, and emphasizing the need to enforce court orders and maintain the administration of justice.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal claim after his employment as a commission sales agent was terminated.

Following the striking of the defendant's statement of defence, the matter proceeded to an uncontested trial.

The court found the plaintiff was an employee or dependent contractor, and that his prior service with a predecessor company should be recognized due to an implied novation.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded an 18-month notice period, resulting in damages of $81,447.15 for lost commissions during the notice period, plus costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of a business.

The deceased purchaser relied on false financial statements and inventory representations provided by the defendants, leading to the business's failure and her subsequent suicide.

The court found the defendants liable based on deemed admissions and expert evidence, awarding $448,474 in damages and $45,000 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment on a mortgage loan and guarantee, seeking damages, possession of the property, and writs of seizure and sale.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice due to significant deficiencies in the materials, including a lack of detailed evidence calculating damages, no evidence regarding who was in possession of the property, concerns about the service of the statement of claim on one defendant, and a failure to serve the motion materials on the defendants as previously directed.

The court issued the endorsement to remind the bar of the evidentiary and procedural requirements for default judgment motions.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff established a real estate partnership, the plaintiff sought costs.

The defendant opposed, arguing costs should wait until the ordered accounting was complete, but failed to submit his own bill of costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff her full claimed partial indemnity costs and disbursements, noting her significant success, the complexity of the matter, and the reasonable fees charged by her counsel.

The applicants, who operate a pharmacy in a condominium building with an exclusive use agreement, sought a compliance order against the respondents for operating a competing pharmacy in a neighbouring condominium building in violation of that building's declaration.

The court granted the compliance order, finding the respondents were in clear breach of the declaration and had attempted to circumvent it.

The court also granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondents from taking steps to amend the declaration pending the hearing of cross-applications for oppression remedies.

The condominium corporation was found to have taken reasonable steps to enforce the declaration and was awarded costs against the respondents.

The parties sought approval of a settlement involving a defendant under disability.

The plaintiff had commenced an action seeking a declaration of constructive trust over a property and resisting eviction.

Following a related proceeding, the plaintiff agreed to provide vacant possession and abandon his claims, with this action to be dismissed without costs.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the party under disability, as it avoided litigation risks and unrecoverable costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, alleging a prolonged fraud involving approximately $27 million intended for cannabis production facilities in Uruguay.

The corporate defendant, A.D. Group, failed to defend the action.

The court found that the deemed admissions established civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Default judgment was granted against A.D. Group for US $11,812,487 and CAD $500,000, and a Mareva injunction was extended.

A case conference was held to discuss the process for an upcoming mini trial.

The court directed the parties to exchange witness lists, proposed evidence, and any additional materials by January 20, 2024, emphasizing the principle of proportionality.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, his former mother-in-law's daughter and her husband, alleging an oral agreement to exchange his 20-percent beneficial interest in a jointly purchased property for sole ownership of a condominium owned by the defendant.

The defendant refused to convey the condominium after the plaintiff separated from her mother.

The court found that the plaintiff had established the oral agreements and made the required payments.

The court held that the Statute of Frauds did not bar the claim because it was not pleaded and the doctrine of part performance applied.

The court awarded the plaintiff $555,000 in damages for breach of contract, or alternatively for unjust enrichment, against the defendant who owned the condominium.