Paul Robson

The applicant brought a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute arising from a real estate development project governed by a Co-Ownership Agreement.

The parties agreed the dispute should be arbitrated but disagreed on whether the corporate mortgagees and individual guarantors were bound by the arbitration clause.

The court applied the competence-competence principle, holding that the arbitrator must determine their own jurisdiction and decide which parties are subject to the arbitration, as the issue involved mixed fact and law requiring contractual interpretation.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 respondent was previously found in contempt for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

Despite being given numerous opportunities and being fined, the respondent persisted in his failure to provide complete banking records, authorizations, and a proper business valuation.

The applicant sought orders for the respondent's incarceration and to strike his pleadings.

The court declined to order incarceration, finding it would not likely bring about compliance and would disadvantage the applicant.

However, applying the three-part test from Ferguson v. Charlton, the court struck the respondent's pleadings due to his egregious and deliberate non-compliance, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt of two prior court orders requiring financial disclosure, including the production of tax returns, bank statements, and a business valuation of his exotic car rental business.

The court found that the respondent had deliberately and wilfully breached both orders by failing to serve his Answer and Financial Statement on time, failing to produce his actual filed tax returns, failing to produce bank and PayPal statements, and failing to retain a Chartered Business Valuator.

The court found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and adjourned the matter for submissions on penalty and costs.

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 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.

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.