P. Starkman

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a Chinese arbitral award against the respondent for unpaid automotive parts.

The respondent opposed, arguing it was denied the opportunity to present its case when the arbitral tribunal refused its request to retain appraisers, and that enforcement would violate public policy.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding the tribunal's procedural decisions did not offend basic notions of justice and the public policy exception was not met.

The court also struck out portions of the respondent's affidavit evidence as inadmissible hearsay and strongly reprimanded the applicant's counsel for uncivil courtroom behaviour.

The defendant was substantially successful on a motion to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien and dismiss the primary causes of action.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $31,817.06, arguing a pre-motion letter constituted an offer to settle.

The court found the letter was merely a demand, not an offer to settle, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

After considering the divided success on some arguments and the complexity of the motion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant moved to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, vacate registrations, and dismiss the action, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff claimed it was the general contractor via an unwritten equitable assignment from the original contractor.

The court found no triable issue regarding the validity of the assignment, meaning the plaintiff was a subcontractor whose lien rights had expired.

The court discharged the lien and dismissed the breach of contract and breach of trust claims, but allowed the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims to proceed.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Malaysian citizen and former international student at the University of Toronto.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for defamation regarding allegations of sexual harassment.

The court found that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside of Ontario, as he had no family, property, or ongoing employment in the province and spent most of his time in Malaysia.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $20,000 in security for costs.

The moving defendants in a solicitor negligence action brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer from the record and for production of his litigation files.

The defendants argued the lawyer was likely to be a material witness regarding the plaintiff's efforts to mitigate damages on an appeal.

The court granted the motion to remove the lawyer, finding he was likely to be called as a witness and his role as advocate could not be reconciled with his role as a witness.

The motion for production of the litigation files was dismissed as premature and overbroad.

In an estate dispute involving a will challenge and alleged resulting trust over joint bank accounts, the applicants sought an interlocutory order restricting an adult child’s access to joint accounts held with the deceased.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust articulated in Pecore v. Pecore, which places the burden on the surviving joint account holder to establish that the deceased intended a gift of survivorship.

The court found that the respondent’s evidence rebutting the presumption was thin and raised a serious issue to be tried.

Given the risk of depletion of estate assets before trial, the court limited the respondent’s withdrawals from the accounts to $2,000 per month pending trial.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

In a will challenge involving a modest estate, the court considered procedural directions and a request for a summary judgment hearing.

The applicants sought to set aside the will alleging lack of testamentary capacity, lack of understanding, and undue influence, and also alleged that joint bank accounts were held on resulting trust for the estate.

The respondent requested a summary judgment motion to dispose of the case.

The court held that summary judgment would be a grossly disproportionate procedure given the modest estate and the presence of significant credibility disputes requiring viva voce evidence.

The court instead limited discovery and directed that the dispute proceed to a short hybrid trial.