Paul Alexander Robson

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's actions and strike his pleadings due to his failure to pay over $150,000 in outstanding costs awards and a $10,000 fine.

The respondent argued he should not have to pay the applicant directly due to alleged fraud and claimed impecuniosity.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding no evidence of impecuniosity and holding that allegations of fraud do not excuse non-compliance with court orders.

The court gave the respondent a final 14-day period to pay the outstanding costs and fine, failing which his pleadings in all related actions would be struck.

The appellant, 11534599 Canada Corp., sought a stay pending appeal of an order requiring it to provide possession of a property to the respondents and to assign a mortgage.

The original order was based on a finding that the appellant had taken illegal possession of the property, contrary to the Mortgages Act, and thus could not rely on the exception in s. 2(3) to refuse assignment.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).

While a serious issue regarding the interpretation of "peaceable possession" was found, the court determined the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm given the respondents' undertaking not to sell the property and the existing equity.

The balance of convenience favored the respondents, who would suffer significant hardship if they lost their principal residence.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The case management judge issued directions regarding multiple related actions.

The court ordered the sale of two vehicles held by a bailiff, with proceeds to be paid into court.

The court also set a timetable for a motion under Rule 60.12 to determine whether the respondent should be permitted to continue participating in the proceedings due to his failure to pay previous costs awards.

Other requests for relief by the respondent were deferred pending the outcome of the Rule 60.12 motion.

The plaintiffs' motion for an interim injunction was previously dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendant, a self-represented retiree, sought costs for the time he and his wife spent responding to the motion.

The plaintiffs argued that under Girao v. Cunningham, the defendant was not entitled to costs because he did not forego remunerative activity.

The court held that while the defendant did not incur an opportunity cost in the form of lost wages, a modest costs award was still appropriate to encourage settlement and prevent the plaintiffs from litigating with impunity.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.

In a case-managed family and related civil litigation matter, the court held that an earlier finding that the marriage contract was of no force or effect remained binding across the litigation.

The court found the contract issue had been raised in the family pleadings, was integral to earlier preservation-order and contempt-related rulings, and could not be relitigated in the parallel civil proceedings.

Applying abuse of process principles, the court emphasized finality, consistency, and the integrity of the adjudicative process.

The court directed that the remaining disputes proceed by case conference, rejected urgency, and reserved costs on the contract submissions.

Following the dismissal of three related proceedings as an abuse of process, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unfounded allegations of fraud and intentional wrongdoing, combined with their attempt to relitigate matters barred by prior releases, justified an elevated costs award.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the total amount at $227,532.72, apportioned among the plaintiffs and the various defendants to ensure proportionality and reasonableness.

The plaintiffs, including a condominium corporation and its directors, brought a motion for an interim injunction to restrain a unit owner from publishing allegedly defamatory Facebook posts accusing them of financial mismanagement and theft.

The plaintiffs also sought to amend their claim to add another plaintiff.

The court dismissed the injunction motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction in defamation cases, as they could not show the statements were impossible to justify given the evidence of financial discrepancies.

The motion to amend the claim was granted as unopposed.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss three proceedings commenced by the plaintiffs regarding a long-standing family business dispute.

The plaintiffs alleged fraud, conspiracy, and misappropriation of funds dating back to the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The court granted the motions, finding that the actions were an abuse of process as they attempted to relitigate issues that had been resolved in prior litigation and settlements.

The court also held that the claims were barred by broad releases signed by the plaintiffs in 2005, 2012, and 2015, and were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Trustee Act.

Mitchell Dubros appealed the dismissal of his certiorari application, which sought to quash his committal for trial on a charge of obstructing justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's decision, affirming that a preliminary inquiry judge's determination of evidentiary sufficiency is owed great deference.

The court held that there was "any evidence" to meet the threshold for committal, specifically evidence of threats made to dissuade witnesses, which constitutes obstruction of justice under s. 139(3) of the Criminal Code, and that the mental element of the offence was sufficiently established.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for the recovery of $45,000.

The individual defendant, an officer of a corporate client, withdrew the funds with only one signature, despite knowing the account required two signatures.

The bank mistakenly permitted the withdrawal and subsequently reimbursed the corporate client.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the individual defendant was not an innocent recipient and was unjustly enriched by the mistake of fact.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount plus interest, but the claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The applicant purchased property and obtained title insurance from the respondent.

The former owner sued the applicant to set aside the sale, and the respondent initially assumed the defence.

The applicant later lost title to the property through power of sale proceedings, prompting the respondent to deny a continuing duty to defend on the basis that the applicant no longer owned the property.

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent owed a continuing duty to defend.

The court found that the underlying action included a claim for damages based on unjust enrichment, which triggered the respondent's duty to defend even though the applicant no longer owned the property.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's urgent application, which amounted to an unjustified attempt to obtain a Mareva injunction, the respondents sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, failure to attend cross-examination, and refusal to pay undisputed mortgage arrears warranted an elevated costs award.

Balancing the indemnity principle with access to justice, the court awarded costs to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $20,000.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal from an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

An interim stay previously ordered was terminated.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal from an interlocutory family law order without first obtaining leave to appeal.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After the appellant failed to respond within the required timeframe, citing COVID-19 illness, the court dismissed the appeal as it required leave.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant bringing a proper motion for leave to appeal, for which the court set strict deadlines.

The moving party sought a stay of an order requiring her to vacate the matrimonial home, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that deadlines were temporarily suspended due to COVID-19, making an extension of time unnecessary.

The court granted a temporary stay of the eviction order until the final disposition of the motion for leave to appeal and set a timetable for the delivery of motion materials.

The moving party sought a stay of an order requiring her to leave the matrimonial home pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that deadlines were suspended due to COVID-19, so an extension of time was not required.

The court granted a temporary stay of the order until the final disposition of the motion for leave to appeal and set a timetable for the delivery of motion materials.

The applicant, Mitchell Dubros, a private investigator, sought an order of certiorari to quash a committal order for attempting to obstruct justice.

The charge arose from his alleged attempts to dissuade witnesses (Cynthia Mulligan, Pam Seatle, James Tumelty) from testifying in a criminal harassment case against Mike Bullard, by threatening to harm their reputations.

The court reviewed the preliminary inquiry judge's decision, applying the "scintilla of evidence" test for jurisdictional error.

It found that the preliminary inquiry judge did not err in committing the applicant to stand trial, as there was sufficient evidence that the applicant sought to dissuade Ms. Mulligan from testifying using threats and other corrupt methods.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

The respondent condominium corporation requested a review and reopening of a previous motion decision under Rules 31.1 and 31.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.

The tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent had not failed to appear, participate, or respond to communications, which are the only conditions under which a review may be considered.

The tribunal noted that the respondent's prior email submissions constituted active participation in the process.

The appellant sought a motion to review a decision of the motion judge.

The motion judge had heard both the respondent's motion to stay proceedings and the appellant's motion for an extension of time simultaneously.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's discretionary order, as the motion judge had reasonably connected his decision on the respondent's motion to his disposition of the appellant's motion.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.00 all-inclusive.

The respondent brought a motion for recusal against the case management judge, alleging bias and lack of impartiality.

The judge had appointed herself as case management judge for complex, protracted proceedings involving the parties.

The respondent maintained the allegations despite being offered an opportunity to withdraw them, and was directed to bring a formal recusal motion.

The respondent failed to provide cogent evidence of bias.

Applying the high threshold for recusal motions, particularly within the case management context, the court found no actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The recusal motion was dismissed.