P. Neufeld

The defendants brought a motion to vary a Mareva injunction but abandoned it shortly before the hearing.

The plaintiff sought costs thrown away for the abandoned motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,500 in costs, finding the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for non-party production and examination was directed to be brought before an associate judge.

The plaintiff tenant entered into a 10-year commercial lease for a café in a new condominium development.

The tenant later abandoned the premises and sued the defendant landlord for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the landlord falsely represented the occupancy dates of surrounding buildings and the availability of convenient, free customer parking.

The court found the landlord negligently misrepresented the parking situation by failing to disclose that a shared facilities committee and condominium concierges would control access, creating significant barriers for retail customers.

The court held that the entire agreement clause in the lease did not preclude the tort claim because it did not address free customer parking.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for operating losses and build-out costs, and the landlord's counterclaim for breach of lease was dismissed.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to extend the set down date for trial, both parties sought costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting that the defendant's conduct, including failing to disclose the transfer of a property and misleading the plaintiff about available assets, materially contributed to the delay.

The court declined to award costs for the defendant's abandoned dismissal motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside previous orders dismissing his request for a Mareva injunction and sought a Mareva injunction and an order for the preservation of property.

The dispute arose from an informal loan agreement where the plaintiff advanced funds in Chinese currency in exchange for repayment in Canadian dollars.

The court set aside the previous orders based on new evidence obtained during cross-examinations, where the defendant admitted owing $2,220,000.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation given the impending sale of the defendant's home.

The Mareva injunction was granted subject to the plaintiff providing an undertaking as to damages, but the motion for preservation of property was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for additional security for costs, which was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity scale, while the defendant argued for partial indemnity costs payable only if the plaintiff was successful at trial.

The court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's conduct was not abusive or reprehensible, but fixed costs at $9,000 payable within 30 days due to the motion's lack of merit and timing.

The defendant brought a motion seeking additional security for costs on the eve of trial, arguing that the plaintiff's pleadings amendments caused unforeseen and material increases in costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to provide evidence of how the additional costs were incurred or that they resulted from the amendments.

The court also noted the defendant's delay in bringing the motion, concluding that the interests of justice favored allowing the plaintiff to proceed to trial without the disruption of a last-minute security order.