Papageorgiou

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently issued a building permit in 1981 without conservation authority approval, leading to foundation failure in 2017.

The court found the claim was discovered objectively by 2013 when the plaintiff obtained an engineering report identifying unsuitable fill, and that the 15-year ultimate limitation period had also expired.

The court rejected arguments that the limitation period was tolled by a municipal claims process or by fraudulent concealment, granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a co-ownership agreement.

The respondents opposed, arguing the applicant was no longer a party to the agreement due to a prior corporate dissolution and purported divestiture of its interest, and that the claim was statute-barred or an abuse of process.

The court granted the application, applying the competence-competence principle to hold that the arbitrator should first rule on their own jurisdiction, as there was an arguable case that the applicant remained a party and the application itself was brought within the applicable limitation period.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, brought an ex parte motion for an interim quia timet injunction to restrain unknown individuals from blockading its railway operations in Ontario.

The blockades were part of a political protest regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm due to significant economic damage and disruption of rail traffic, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff as the protests were occurring on private property.

The interim injunction was granted.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, former Executive Chairman of a non-profit organization, sued the defendants over WeChat messages and a published declaration alleging election manipulation, financial opaqueness, and by-law violations.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the defendants had valid defences including justification and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the Lin Defendants for failing to comply with previous court orders, including a Mareva injunction, which required them to provide affidavits of assets, submit to examinations under oath, and provide a monthly accounting.

The Lin Defendants failed to attend the examinations, failed to provide the required information, and could not be located.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court issued a declaration of breach, struck the Lin Defendants' pleadings, froze their assets without allowance for business expenses, and set a timetable for the plaintiffs to move for default judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of a 50% beneficial ownership interest in a property and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with her use of the property due to alleged assaults.

The defendant disputed the partnership and the assaults, claiming the plaintiff made false police reports.

The court found that the assault allegations raised a credibility issue and directed a one-day mini-trial under Rule 20 to hear oral evidence from the parties.

The Law Society brought proceedings against the defendant for practicing law without a licence in breach of a court order.

The defendant previously consented to a contempt order and was penalized with community service and costs.

After failing to comply with the terms of the penalty order, a case conference was held.

The court gave the defendant one final opportunity to comply, setting new deadlines for obtaining approval for his community service organization and paying the balance of the costs.

The minor plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and sustained non-catastrophic injuries, including a head injury that largely resolved.

The plaintiff, through his litigation guardian, brought a motion under Rule 7 to approve a $20,000 settlement.

The court reviewed updated medical evidence confirming the minor's recovery and found the settlement, along with the proposed contingency fees and disbursements, to be fair and reasonable.

The motion was granted and the settlement was approved.

At a case conference, the defendants sought to schedule a short motion to strike the plaintiff's claim in its entirety.

The court declined to hear the substantive motion to strike at the case conference, noting that while Rule 50.13 allows for procedural orders and some interlocutory relief to expedite matters, it is inappropriate to dismiss an action entirely without the benefit of factums or case law.

The case conference was adjourned to allow the parties to consider their options, including a potential summary trial.

The plaintiff, an elderly man in long-term care, brought an urgent motion to remove Notices of Security Interest (NOSIs) registered on his property's title by the defendants, who are alleged to be involved in a door-to-door HVAC and financing scheme.

The property was sold under mortgage enforcement proceedings and the sale could not close with the NOSIs on title.

The defendants did not respond to the motion.

The court ordered the NOSIs removed upon the plaintiff's undertaking to hold sufficient funds in trust, validated service, ordered the defendants to produce the underlying security agreements within 15 days, and appointed the plaintiff's daughter as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the release of a $100,000 deposit from an aborted real estate transaction and for a preservation order regarding the proceeds of sale of another property.

The self-represented defendant consented to the release of the deposit, which was granted.

The court dismissed the request for a preservation order because the defendant was not the title holder of the other property, and the actual title holder had not been served with the motion.

Following a summary judgment granting the plaintiff $567,767.25 and possession of a property, the plaintiff sought costs of $40,659.20 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the standard charge terms entitled the plaintiff to substantial indemnity costs and there were no special circumstances to depart from this agreement.

The court awarded the requested amount, noting the serious allegations made by the defendant justified the use of senior counsel.

In an oppression application, the applicant sought the production of corporate books and records to prove financial irregularities that allegedly led to his termination as Chief Operating Officer.

At a case conference, the respondents objected that the applicant had not yet served an affidavit.

The court ordered the applicant to serve a preliminary affidavit and a detailed request for production, and scheduled a further case conference to resolve the production issue, noting that case conference judges have the power to make orders to prevent unnecessary delays.

The defendants appealed an Associate Judge's order requiring them to produce further and better affidavits of documents.

The defendants argued the Associate Judge erred by refusing an adjournment, making the order without sufficient evidence, and appending an overly broad list of documents to the order.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal of the adjournment, sufficient evidence to support the order, and that the order appropriately incorporated principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant corporation sought an order to sell the self-represented respondent's co-ownership interest in a residential building due to unpaid damage awards and costs orders totaling over $85,000.

The respondent provided a letter from his treating physician indicating serious psychiatric conditions affecting his ability to function and advocate for himself.

The court adjourned the application and ordered a capacity assessment, finding significant concerns that the respondent is a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The plaintiff seller brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant purchaser after the defendant failed to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant was noted in default, and the court found that the deemed admissions established liability for breach of the agreement of purchase and sale.

The court awarded the plaintiff $182,852.33 in damages, representing the loss of bargain (the difference between the original purchase price and the resale price, less the deposit), carrying costs, and the commission paid to resell the property.

Costs and prejudgment interest were also awarded.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for production orders and examination of the defendants in aid of an existing Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The only contentious issue was a request to order a non-party exchange to provide information regarding the defendants' assets.

The court granted the order, finding it necessary in aid of execution of the Mareva injunction, and rejected the defendants' argument that the request was an improper attempt to gather evidence for a contempt motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Mareva injunction regarding the proceeds of the sale of a commercial property owned by the defendants.

The defendants did not receive notice of the motion because their former counsel had stopped practicing and they had moved.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the defendants to respond, ordered substituted service by email, and directed that any excess funds from the property sale be held in trust by the plaintiff's counsel pending the motion's outcome.

The plaintiff brought an action against the estate of a deceased family friend, claiming sole beneficial ownership of two properties and seeking repayment of loans evidenced by promissory notes.

The estate claimed a 50% interest in one of the properties, Bowan Court, arguing it was intended as a matrimonial home for the deceased and the plaintiff's daughter.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims regarding the first property and the loans due to pleading deficiencies and lack of corroboration.

However, the court granted the plaintiff's claim for sole ownership of Bowan Court, finding no evidence of a common intention or unjust enrichment to support the estate's trust claims, and ordered the deceased's 1% interest removed from title.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The parties returned to court to address alleged deficiencies in the defendants' asset disclosure affidavits, requests for living and business operating expenses, and potential limits on the injunction.

The court found the defendants' affidavits deficient and ordered further and better affidavits with supporting documentation.

The court also granted interim interim orders allowing specific monthly amounts for living and business operating expenses, but found it premature to limit the scope of the Mareva injunction until complete asset information was provided.