Peter Smiley

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by Money Gate Corporation, the successful responding parties sought costs. 2399029 Ontario Inc. and World Corporation Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs of $185,687.19 due to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, which Money Gate Corporation did not dispute in principle but argued were inflated.

The court reduced the claimed amount due to unnecessary work and fixed costs at $160,000 on a substantial indemnity scale.

Curah Capital Corporation was awarded its requested $12,024 on a partial indemnity scale.

In a receivership proceeding, a non-party, Money Gate Corporation (MGC), brought a motion seeking a distribution of $1,159,517.66 from the proceeds of the sale of a property, claiming to be the assignee of a second mortgage.

The motion was opposed by the property owner and the holder of subsequent charges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that MGC failed to prove it used its own funds or funds raised from private investors to purchase the assignment.

Furthermore, MGC's failure to register the transfer under the Land Titles Act meant it did not have priority over subsequent registered charges.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action due to their failure to pay four outstanding costs orders totaling $21,350.

The self-represented plaintiffs argued the costs orders were stayed pending a constitutional challenge and were the result of a fraud and conspiracy involving the defendant's counsel, the Law Society of Ontario, and LawPro.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, noting their conspiracy claims had been repeatedly dismissed by other courts and that they explicitly refused to pay the ordered costs.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action to protect the administration of justice.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal and motions, the court determined the scale and quantum of costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' conduct, which included baseless allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and criminal conduct against the defendant's counsel, LawPro, and the LSO, was reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous.

Consequently, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful parties, fixing the amounts at $12,000 for the defendant, $9,000 for LawPro, and $7,500 for the LSO.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, an officer of their corporation, fraudulently and without authorization registered two mortgages against their properties.

They also sued the lawyer who registered the mortgages for negligence and the mortgagees for relying on the mortgages despite alleged red flags.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the officer had actual authority to bind the corporation under its by-laws, the plaintiff was aware of and benefited from the mortgages as part of a scheme to avoid foreign creditors, the lawyer met the standard of care, and the mortgagees were protected by the indoor management rule and the Land Titles Act.

The 87-year-old defendant, who had significant health issues, brought a motion to give his evidence before trial outside of court and to present his evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit.

The plaintiff consented to the pre-trial video examination but opposed the use of an affidavit, arguing it would be 'counsel created evidence' and unfair in a case where credibility was central.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's concerns could be adequately addressed through cross-examination and that the accommodation was appropriate given the defendant's health.

The self-represented plaintiffs brought an omnibus motion in a lawyer negligence action, primarily seeking to remove the defendant's lawyer of record.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's lawyer, LawPro, and the Law Society of Ontario colluded to force the plaintiffs' former lawyer off the record.

The Master dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no evidence of improper conduct and noting that the relationship between the plaintiffs and their former lawyer had broken down months prior.

Requests for non-party productions, striking pleadings, and forensic examinations were also dismissed, though the plaintiffs were permitted to ask follow-up questions on undertakings in writing.

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.

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.