Patrice Côté

The plaintiff commenced an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression remedies arising from his ouster as director and CEO of the defendant corporation.

The defendants filed a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, claiming the plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement.

The defendants failed to properly advance their motion, initially abandoning it for six weeks, then repackaging it as a rule 21 motion.

After multiple procedural disputes, case conferences, and a motion for leave to appeal a case conference endorsement, the defendants failed to file their motion confirmation form by the required deadline.

The motion was deemed abandoned under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, finding the defendants engaged in improper delaying tactics throughout the nine-month proceeding.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff, James Pushie, in a property dispute with Carmela Guidarelli following the breakdown of their romantic and business relationship.

The court considers the admissibility of evidence previously ruled inadmissible, the scope of evidence at trial, the amendment of pleadings, and ongoing disclosure obligations.

The court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings, clarifies that evidence previously excluded at the application stage may be tendered at trial subject to relevance and admissibility, and sets out procedural directions for the conduct of the trial.

The defendant/father moved for costs after the plaintiff/mother discontinued her civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.

The civil action was launched after the mother filed a motion to change in family court seeking to relocate with the child, which the father opposed.

The court found the civil action unnecessary and duplicative, as the claim for damages should have been made within the family law proceeding.

Despite the mother's claims of being threatened and impecunious, the court found no supporting evidence for these assertions.

The father's Bill of Costs was deemed reasonable.

The court ordered the mother to pay $4000 in costs to the father.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of three overlapping actions brought under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The actions arose from a family dispute concerning the appellant's exclusion from his grandfather's will and alleged undue influence and fraudulent conduct by family members and lawyers.

The motion judge dismissed the actions as frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the motion judge failed to make explicit findings that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process; (2) the harassment and defamation claims were supported by the pleadings; and (3) the motion judge failed to explain why the statements of claim could not be amended.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds of appeal and upheld the dismissals.