Peter H. Smiley

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing it was impecunious and that its financial state was caused by the defendant's actions.

The court found the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to prove impecuniosity, noting significant gaps and contradictions in the financial disclosure regarding the plaintiff's sole shareholder and related companies.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in tranches and pay costs of the motion.

The applicant, Hazelton Homes Corporation, initiated two applications seeking declarations of trust over two properties held by Morteza Katebian, among other relief.

Katebian and other respondents opposed, with Katebian also seeking consolidation and conversion of the applications into an action.

The court consolidated the applications but found significant material facts in dispute, including allegations of criminal activity and conflicting handwriting expert evidence regarding trust agreements.

Consequently, the court ordered the consolidated applications to proceed to trial, converting them into an action, and scheduled a case management conference.

Hazelton Homes Corporation, a non-party, brought a motion for leave to intervene and to set aside orders granting the plaintiffs leave to issue writs of possession for two properties.

Hazelton alleged the defendant held the properties in trust for it, while the defendant claimed the trust agreements were forged.

The plaintiffs and the first mortgagee held mortgages in default.

The court found Hazelton was not a mortgagor under section 23 of the Mortgages Act but granted an interim order allowing Hazelton to intervene and stayed the enforcement of the writs of possession, conditional upon Hazelton paying all mortgage arrears, ongoing interest, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

This endorsement addresses eight related motions in five consolidated actions stemming from uncompleted real estate transactions.

The court case-managed the proceedings, resolving most motions by agreement or direction.

The primary substantive dispute adjudicated concerned the quantum of security for costs to be paid by the plaintiffs, Gui Zhao and Juanli Liu, to the defendant Qing Hui, which the court set at $27,000, a figure between the parties' proposals.

Other motions, including those for discovery and to strike a cross-claim, were adjourned sine die with directions for future resolution or agreement.

The appellant, New Era Development (2011) Inc., appealed a summary judgment decision granting fees of $400,000 to the respondent mortgage broker, Rescon Financial Corporation, and dismissing New Era's counterclaim.

The dispute concerned whether Rescon was entitled to commission upon producing an acceptable commitment letter or only upon actual funding.

The motion judge found the commitment letter acceptable, rejected New Era's defences based on fiduciary duty breach, negligence, and statutory violations, and dismissed the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on all grounds, finding no genuine issues requiring trial.

The applicants brought a contempt motion against the respondents for failing to produce financial records as ordered by a prior court order.

Although the records were eventually produced, leading to no formal finding of contempt, the court found that the respondents' lengthy delay and non-compliance necessitated the motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicants, finding the respondents' conduct in delaying disclosure and forcing the contempt motion to be reprehensible and to constitute special circumstances justifying a higher scale of costs.

Following the release of the court's reasons on appeal, the parties agreed on the costs of the application.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs of the application to the appellants in the agreed amount of $35,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants, former franchisees of a home medical equipment business, appealed a decision enforcing a restrictive covenant that prevented them from operating a similar business within a 30-mile radius for 18 months after the franchise agreement expired.

The franchisor's corporate parent operated a competing store in the same territory, and the franchisor admitted it had no intention of opening another franchise in that area.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that because the franchisor had no intention of operating in the protected territory, it had no legitimate or proprietary interest to protect there.

Consequently, the restrictive covenant was unreasonable and unenforceable.

The appellants, concert promoters, sued Bell Media for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duty after Bell refused to sell them radio advertising.

The motion judge struck the claims, denying leave to amend the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

On appeal, the appellants sought leave to amend their claim based on a failure to contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a failure to contract in these circumstances does not qualify as a breach of fiduciary duty, and thus the proposed amendment would not cure the defect.