Peter C. Card

The lawyer of record for the corporate defendant, Golden Environmental Services Inc., moved to be removed from the record.

Concurrently, the corporation's sole shareholder sought leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to represent the corporation.

The court dismissed the shareholder's motion, finding insufficient evidence that the corporation could not afford legal counsel and noting that the remaining issue regarding alleged negligent remediation was complex.

The lawyer's motion to be removed was adjourned for 30 days to allow the corporation to retain new counsel or satisfy the current retainer.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants' counterclaim, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the defendants' conduct to be egregious, noting they unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings by incorporating voluminous irrelevant material and re-litigating previously decided issues.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $23,147.35 against the personal and corporate defendants.

Claims for costs against a non-party and opposing counsel personally were dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce a second mortgage and obtain payment of funds paid into court following a power of sale.

The defendants alleged the mortgage had been fully paid through a combination of cheque and cash payments, relying primarily on internal payment spreadsheets and hearsay evidence from a bookkeeper.

The court held that the defendants failed to provide reliable proof of payment and that their evidence consisted largely of unsupported assertions.

Applying the summary judgment framework following Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding mortgage balance with interest and the plaintiff was declared entitled to surplus sale proceeds subject to set-offs.

A third party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order refusing summary judgment that would have dismissed a counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court reviewed the test under Rule 62.02(4) for leave to appeal interlocutory orders to the Divisional Court.

Although aspects of the motion judge’s reasoning raised issues open to debate, the order itself was supported by independent grounds, including triable issues relating to equitable set‑off and discoverability.

The court held there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of broader public importance warranting appellate intervention.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The court heard multiple motions in a long-running dispute over a real estate transaction and mortgage discharge.

The third party sought summary judgment dismissing claims against it as statute-barred and disclosing no cause of action.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings and summary judgment dismissing parts of the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant sought leave to amend his defence to plead equitable setoff.

The court granted the motions for leave to amend pleadings, finding them tenable in law.

However, the court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the expiry of limitation periods, discoverability, and the third party claim for contribution and indemnity.