Paul Alexander Robson

The court heard urgent applications and a cross-application for the appointment of a guardian for personal care and property for an incapacitated individual.

The primary applicant sought guardianship to challenge a doctor's life support plan at the Consent and Capacity Board, while the cross-applicant (spouse) intended to consent to the plan if appointed.

The court dismissed both applications for guardianship of personal care, finding that the need for decisions could be met by a less restrictive alternative, specifically by allowing the Consent and Capacity Board to determine the appropriate substitute decision-maker.

The court emphasized that the Board is the expert body for such life-and-death decisions.

Applications for guardianship of property were adjourned.

The primary applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the spouse and a statutory fee to the Public Guardian and Trustee, partly due to the inappropriate conduct of counsel and the lack of admissible evidence.

The appellant husband moved to stay an order pending appeal.

The order required the preservation of assets, scheduled a contempt motion against the husband, and allowed the examination of non-parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the order was interlocutory in nature, meaning there was no serious issue for appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, the husband failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm to support a stay.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion for directions regarding the examination of the respondent and non-parties, and for a preservation order under s. 12 of the Family Law Act regarding a fleet of exotic cars.

The respondent argued the examinations should not proceed due to late service of the notice.

The court excused the minor procedural irregularity and ordered the examinations to proceed.

The court also granted the preservation order, finding the applicant had established a prima facie case for an equalization payment and that the respondent was transferring the exotic cars to a third-party corporation to put them beyond her reach.

At a case conference, the court addressed the self-represented plaintiff's failure to deliver a Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim combining allegations from three separate proceedings by the previously ordered deadline.

The plaintiff delivered a 130-page draft just prior to the conference that merely expanded one proceeding rather than combining them.

The court granted a final extension to May 6, 2016, to deliver the combined pleading, after which the defendants may bring motions for summary judgment or to strike.

Costs of the attendance were awarded to the defendants in the cause due to the plaintiff's delay.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision upholding a trust agreement that declared the appellant company's assets belonged to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's credibility findings regarding the agreement's execution.

However, the Court held that the motion judge erred by granting a certificate of pending litigation on his own initiative, as it was neither pleaded nor requested.

The appeal was allowed in part solely to delete the certificate of pending litigation, and dismissed in all other respects.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to comply with a court order to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim by the specified deadline.

The defendants subsequently sought to schedule a motion to strike the pleadings.

The case management judge scheduled an in-person case conference to address the breach.

The plaintiff requested an adjournment due to a newly discovered scheduling conflict in Small Claims Court.

The court denied the adjournment, ordering the case conference to proceed as scheduled and noting that the Superior Court proceedings should take priority.

At a case conference, the court noted that the self-represented plaintiff had commenced three separate actions with overlapping defendants and identical material facts, potentially constituting an abuse of process.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, the court ordered the plaintiff to deliver a single Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim consolidating all allegations and defendants into one pleading, and set a timetable for the defendants to respond or bring motions to strike.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's order requiring it to post $30,000 as security for costs in a fraudulent misrepresentation action against a real estate brokerage.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff had established impecuniosity and that its claim against the brokerage had a good chance of success.

The order for security for costs was set aside.

At a case conference involving three related civil actions with overlapping pleadings and defendants, the court addressed procedural disorganization arising from the commencement of multiple actions rather than amendment of an existing claim.

The court noted significant factual overlap between the claims and anticipated that consolidation or a fresh amended statement of claim might ultimately be required.

As case management judge, the court imposed directions governing future motions, service of materials, and communication between the self-represented plaintiff and defence counsel.

The court also scheduled a further case conference and authorized service by email on specific defendants.

The appellant appealed a preservation order requiring him to deliver luxury vehicles or their sale proceeds to the respondent trustee in bankruptcy, and freezing his bank accounts.

The appellant argued he only acquired a beneficial interest in the vehicles when a court declared a trust agreement valid, years after his bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's beneficial interest existed at the time of his bankruptcy pursuant to the trust agreement, and the motion judge made no error in principle in exercising his discretion to make the preservation order.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment based on promissory notes totaling more than $8 million CAD and $290,750 USD, supported by a Confirmation of Indebtedness and a Consent to Judgment signed by the defendant with independent legal advice.

The defendant filed a statement of defence and counterclaim alleging that the notes were executed only to assist the plaintiff with banking arrangements and that the plaintiff breached an investment agreement.

The court found the defence consisted of unsupported bald allegations and that the documentary evidence, including the acknowledgment of indebtedness and consent to judgment, was clear and unambiguous.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff and the defendant’s counterclaim and motion to transfer the matter to Toronto were dismissed.

The respondent brought a Small Claims Court action alleging he should not have been charged with various parking offences under the Highway Traffic Act, though he did not seek to set aside the convictions.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, but the Divisional Court set aside that order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the Small Claims Court decision, holding that challenging the factual basis underlying convictions without directly seeking to set them aside constitutes an abuse of process and impermissible relitigation.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the undischarged bankrupt acquired shares and diverted property in violation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trial judge found that the bankrupt collaborated to conceal assets from the trustee and ordered an accounting by the corporate appellants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions on share ownership, jurisdiction, and credibility, and upheld the award of substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants filed a Notice of Appeal from an order dismissing their motion to declare an action against them a nullity in bankruptcy proceedings.

They then brought a motion in chambers before the Court of Appeal, arguing that the filing of the Notice of Appeal triggered an automatic stay of the impending trial under s. 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The chambers judge first determined she had jurisdiction to decide the applicability of the stay.

On the merits, the judge found that the appellants did not have an appeal as of right under s. 193(a) or (c) because the order appealed from did not involve future rights or property directly exceeding $10,000 in value.

Consequently, the automatic stay under s. 195 did not take effect, and the motion was dismissed.