P.R. Sweeny J.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $300,000 promissory note executed by the defendant.

The defendant admitted to borrowing the funds and failing to repay the note, but raised several defences, including lack of consideration, reliance on third-party misrepresentations, and a pending arbitration under a related shareholders' agreement.

The court rejected these defences, finding no material facts in dispute and that the obligation to pay the note was independent of the shareholders' agreement.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amount plus prejudgment interest, with credit given for interest payments previously made by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $300,000 promissory note executed by the defendant.

The defendant raised several defences, including lack of consideration, reliance on misrepresentations, and that the matter should be delayed pending arbitration under a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The court found no material facts in dispute, rejecting the defendant's arguments but granting credit for certain interest payments as agreed by the plaintiff.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amount plus prejudgment interest.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs of $185,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs.

The court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity scale, noting the complexity of the issues and the amount at stake.

After adjusting the hourly rates and reducing the time claimed for preparation and trial, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $134,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was substantially similar to a previously dismissed claim and failed to detail any specific claim against the defendants, who had acted as opposing counsel in prior litigation.

The court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, awarding costs to the defendants.

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court noted the claim appeared similar to previously dismissed actions brought by the plaintiff in other jurisdictions.

The court directed the Registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the written hearing.