Pathik Bipinchandra Baxi

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs the right to amend their statement of claim to add parties.

The defendants argued that the amendment should have been prohibited due to an expired limitation period and a failure to plead discoverability.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision on a matter of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the disputed discoverability evidence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondents based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued that a $5,000 cash payment from the respondents extended the limitation period, a claim the respondents denied.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge properly refused an adjournment, he failed to resolve the material contradictions in the evidence regarding the alleged payment.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

A proposed purchaser under an agreement of purchase and sale sought leave to intervene in a mortgage enforcement proceeding where the defendants had brought a motion to stay a power of sale and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court considered Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing intervention by added parties.

The proposed intervenor demonstrated a real interest in the litigation because the outcome could affect his contractual right to complete the purchase of the property and his submissions would assist the court in assessing issues including fair market value.

The court found that at least one of the disjunctive criteria under Rule 13.01(1) was met and that intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

Leave to intervene as an added party on the defendants’ motion was granted.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their main action and striking their defence to a counterclaim for delay and failure to comply with undertakings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision based on the record before him.

However, the appellants brought a motion to file fresh evidence consisting of the previously unproduced financial documents.

Although the fresh evidence did not meet the due diligence requirement, the Court admitted it because it was highly relevant to the ongoing defamation counterclaim.

The appeal was allowed, the pleadings were restored, and the action was returned to the trial list, with costs awarded to the respondent due to the appellants' delay.

The appellant brought a motion to reopen a final judgment based on fresh evidence, specifically a document ('exhibit H') purporting to show the correct zoning for his property, which would resolve a dispute over a revoked building permit.

The court found it had jurisdiction to reopen the case under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to prevent a miscarriage of justice, despite the appellant's lack of reasonable diligence in bringing the document forward.

However, after reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that exhibit H was not an authentic document.

The motion to alter the previous judgment was dismissed, and the original remediation timetable remained in effect.

The applicants sought a final injunction enforcing a non-competition covenant in a shareholders agreement after a former business participant returned to a competing enterprise and contacted prospective clients previously approached through the joint venture.

The court held the agreement unambiguously provided that the restrictive covenant survived the cessation of share ownership for five years, and rejected the argument that the termination clause nullified the restraint.

Applying the more generous approach to restrictive covenants in commercial agreements, the court found the five-year term and GTA geographic scope reasonable and enforceable.

The court further held that damages would rarely be an adequate remedy for breach of an enforceable negative covenant and granted injunctive relief against the respondents.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment arising from a claim by investors alleging they were misled about a corporation's business and seeking return of their investments.

Applying the interests of justice framework for setting aside default judgment, the court found the defendants had not acted promptly, had no plausible excuse for deliberately choosing not to defend, and failed to file evidence giving their proposed defence an air of reality.

The court also found prejudice favoured the plaintiffs given competing creditor claims and the defendants' asset constraints.

The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were fixed at $8,000.00 inclusive.

The plaintiff brought an action for non-payment of rent against the corporate defendant and its guarantor.

The defendants filed a defence and counterclaim before the corporate defendant was voluntarily dissolved.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing the dissolved corporation lacked capacity to litigate.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under section 242(1) of the Business Corporations Act, a dissolved corporation retains the right to defend an action and continue a counterclaim commenced prior to dissolution.

The court also authorized a former director to give instructions on behalf of the dissolved corporation.

Former tenants commenced a civil action against their landlord alleging that, following eviction and termination of a residential lease, the landlord trashed or retained personal property left at the premises and sought damages of $100,000 plus punitive damages.

Earlier proceedings before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal had found a breach of an agreement to allow additional time for removal of belongings, but the Divisional Court set aside the rent abatement and directed that damages be determined.

At trial, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the alleged property, failed to establish that the landlord destroyed or retained any goods, and relied on a list of items the court found unreliable and misleading.

The court also found that certain items alleged to be present were not even available for purchase in Ontario at the relevant time.

The plaintiffs therefore failed to establish damages or liability on a balance of probabilities.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their solicitor negligence action against their former counsel.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as time-barred, finding that the statement of claim merely reiterated allegations the appellants had made three years earlier in their defence to the solicitors' action for unpaid fees.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's assessment and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The defendant lawyers moved for summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence action on the basis that it was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the claim was not discovered until evidence obtained during a later assessment hearing revealed the extent of the alleged negligence.

The court held that the plaintiffs already possessed the material facts necessary to discover their claim when they pleaded negligence in a statement of defence in earlier fee litigation.

The discoverability doctrine did not postpone the limitation period because no fundamentally new facts were discovered later.

Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed as statute‑barred.

Following competing family law motions, the court considered whether either party should receive costs.

Neither party had delivered an Offer to Settle under the applicable procedural rules.

Although the court found some of the responding party’s claims to be unreasonable, that party nevertheless achieved partial success on the motions, including an advance of funds for litigation expenses.

Because both parties achieved some measure of success and no settlement offers were made, the court concluded that neither side was entitled to a costs award.

In a family law motion arising from ongoing matrimonial litigation, the applicant sought contempt findings relating to a child travel order, variation of spousal support, and partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought a $400,000 interim advance toward equalization and litigation expenses, increased retroactive child and spousal support, and various financial and corporate controls over the applicant’s businesses.

The court declined to find contempt due to the criminal standard of proof but awarded the applicant costs associated with a cancelled trip.

The court partially granted the respondent’s request for an advance by ordering a $100,000 interim payment but refused most other relief, including variation of support and corporate control remedies.

The request for partition and sale of the matrimonial home was also refused pending trial.

The mother appealed an order under the Hague Convention requiring the return of her daughter to the United Kingdom.

The application judge found that the child's habitual residence was the U.K., as the parents had not given up their residence there when they travelled to Canada.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding habitual residence or his decision not to require oral testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.