Preetmohinder Singh Wadhwa

The appellant challenged dismissal of a motion for leave to issue a third-party claim, arguing limitation issues were wrongly decided.

The court held the motion judge made no error in finding the claim was statute-barred and rejected arguments premised on separate proceedings and later party discussions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, Eli Messica, appealed an order granting the respondents’ application for the discharge of a security charge and dismissing his cross-application for damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s findings that the lease provided for the release of the guarantors upon assignment and that the cross-application was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court rejected arguments regarding the conversion of the application to an action and the applicability of the Real Property Limitations Act, finding no reversible error or prejudice.

Wasim Investments Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its statement of claim, which sought to enforce a mortgage.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as duplicative of a separate action commenced by the individual respondents, who sought to void the same mortgage, citing a clear risk of abuse of process due to potential inconsistent interpretations.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's factual findings or her conclusion that the action was duplicative and an abuse of process, affirming that all issues regarding the mortgage's enforceability should be addressed within the original action.

The defendant Google LLC moved for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation action brought by a daycare business and its owner.

The plaintiffs alleged that defamatory and fake reviews were posted on Google's 'Local Reviews' platform by the other defendants.

Google argued it was a passive intermediary and not a publisher of the third-party content.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues of fact and law requiring a trial, particularly regarding whether Google became a publisher by failing to remove the reviews after receiving notice of their defamatory nature.

The plaintiffs were also granted leave to bring a motion to amend their Statement of Claim.

The Plaintiffs sought to maintain a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on the Defendants' property at 19 Borland Crescent, alleging an interest in the land due to an unpaid $50,000 loan used for its purchase and a fraudulent conveyance.

The Defendants opposed, arguing the Plaintiffs had no claim to an interest in the land and that the test for a CPL was not met.

The court found it doubtful whether an interest in land was claimed, and even if so, the Plaintiffs failed to meet the test for continuing a CPL, as the land was not unique, damages were quantifiable and a satisfactory remedy, and the Defendants provided an undertaking securing the loan against another property.

The court also found no evidence of fraudulent conveyance.

The CPL was ordered removed from title.

This decision addresses the costs of a previous motion where Economical Insurance successfully moved to strike portions of the plaintiffs' claims.

The court found Economical to be the successful party on the underlying motion.

While the plaintiffs' counsel's conduct in noting Economical in default was improper and lengthened the proceeding, it was not serious enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Economical in the amount of $7,500.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding the claimed amount proportional with a minor deduction for duplicate time.