Quinn Ryan Hanna

The court voided six promissory notes and struck out related mortgages registered by the plaintiffs against the defendants' properties, finding that the notes were materially altered without consent, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court also declined to grant equitable mortgages or certificates of pending litigation, citing the plaintiffs' inequitable conduct and failure to meet statutory tests.

The decision addresses issues of forged notes, after-acquired property, corporate personality, and the application of the Family Law Act to matrimonial homes.

This case involves two applications concerning a commercial tenancy dispute.

The applicants, Northern Fabco Ltd., sought a declaration that they are the rightful tenant of a commercial property, arguing that the respondent landlord, 2206709 Ontario Inc., unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of a lease.

The court found that the landlord's refusal to consent was unreasonable, particularly because no valid reasons were provided at the time of refusal, and the refusal appeared to be driven by a collateral purpose to secure a new tenancy agreement.

This case involves appeals from a Master's decision regarding procedural motions in a breach of contract action related to a tender process.

Metrolinx, Exclusive Advertising Inc., and non-party IMA Outdoor Inc. all appealed various aspects.

The court allowed Metrolinx's appeal, dismissing those of Exclusive and IMA.

Key issues included the amendment of pleadings to allege collusion, the relevance of post-Contract B events to discovery and production, and the examination of a non-party representative.

The court affirmed that collusion must be properly pleaded to open up Contract B events for discovery and upheld the Master's finding of a constructive refusal to obtain information as a basis for ordering a non-party examination.

This was a standalone costs endorsement following dismissal of an application.

The successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court held that elevated costs require reprehensible or egregious conduct or other circumstances deserving chastisement, which were absent here.

The court applied the fair and reasonable costs principles and allowed costs only on a partial indemnity basis, disallowing part of one lawyer's time while rejecting the applicants' argument for deductions based on cross-examinations conducted in the application.

Costs were fixed at $10,743.89, payable by the applicants jointly and severally within thirty days.

The applicants entered into agreements to purchase pre-construction condominiums from the respondent developer.

The agreements required the purchasers to provide financial disclosure and mortgage approvals within a specified time.

The applicants failed to provide the required documentation on time, and the respondent terminated the agreements.

The applicants sought relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants had not exercised reasonable diligence to comply with the agreements, their breach was substantial, and there was no reliable evidence of the disparity between the value of the properties and the damage caused by the breach.

The moving party sought to set aside a default judgment entered after he failed to attend trial in a construction dispute involving unpaid subcontractor invoices and alleged breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied the established three‑part test for setting aside default judgments, considering whether there was a plausible excuse for failing to attend trial, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether a defence on the merits existed.

The court found the moving party knew of the trial date, deliberately failed to attend, delayed unreasonably in seeking relief, and lacked a viable defence, including evidence that he exercised effective control over the corporation that breached the statutory trust.

The motion to set aside the judgment and related enforcement orders was dismissed, though the court directed steps toward examination in aid of execution and potential production of a mortgage discharge statement.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order compelling the defendant and a related witness to re-attend cross‑examinations on affidavits and answer outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The issues arose in the context of a pending motion by the defendant to set aside a default judgment entered against him for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court held that the disputed questions and requested documents, including corporate records, financial statements, tax returns, and records relating to a successor company, were relevant to determining whether the defendant had a meritorious defence and whether he exercised control over the corporate defendant.

The court ordered the defendant and witness to re-attend to answer the questions and produce documents.

Costs were awarded against the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.