Rahul Gandotra

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the trial judge's factual findings on an off-set issue and the costs disposition.

The respondent cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the off-set issue, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court allowed the appellant's costs appeal and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, as the parties agreed the trial judge erred in principle by determining success on a distributive-costs basis.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge to determine the quantum of costs.

The defendants brought an urgent motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that the plaintiff had obtained without notice.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff failed to disclose a "No Registration" clause (NRC) in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) as a material fact.

The court found that the NRC was not material because the vendor had terminated the APS prior to the CPL motion.

Furthermore, the NRC did not explicitly prohibit CPL registration.

Applying the Dhunna factors, the court determined that justice favored maintaining the CPL, given the uniqueness of the land, the plaintiff's intent to reside there, and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy.

The defendants' motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant, Mr. Lotey, appealed an order striking out his statement of defence for failing to comply with documentary production obligations over a three-year period.

His law firm also sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to personally pay the costs of the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Lotey's appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 30.08(2) given the deliberate and continuous failure to produce relevant documents.

The Court also denied the law firm leave to appeal the costs order, finding the firm was complicit in the flagrant disregard of the Rules and court orders.

Following a summary trial regarding unpaid invoices under a construction contract, the plaintiff was awarded a principal judgment with a set-off granted to the defendant.

The court received written submissions on prejudgment interest and costs.

The court clarified that prejudgment interest would be awarded in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, as the plaintiff's Statement of Claim did not plead the 24% rate requested at trial.

On costs, the court found that success was divided both financially and contextually, and ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The plaintiff, Janeric Engineering Inc., sought summary judgment for $400,000 plus interest based on a promissory note given by the defendant, 2496110 Ontario Inc., in the context of an asset purchase agreement.

The defendant argued that conditions precedent for payment were not met and asserted a right of setoff.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the promissory note enforceable as amended by an addendum, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding banking documents and the right of equitable setoff against a promissory note.

The court also denied a stay of judgment as no counterclaim was filed.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant condominium corporation for unpaid invoices totaling $96,622.42 relating to a corridor refurbishment project.

The defendant claimed set-offs for various construction deficiencies, including missing suite numbers, carpet gaps, and defective painting.

The court found the plaintiff breached the contract by unilaterally changing the paint brand and held the plaintiff responsible for the missing suite numbers and carpet gaps.

The court allowed set-offs totaling $35,193.32 and granted judgment to the plaintiff for the remaining balance of $61,429.10 plus prejudgment interest.

The Plaintiff, Falcon Lumber Limited, sought to strike the pleadings of the Lotey Defendants due to their persistent and deliberate failure to comply with numerous court orders for document production and examinations for discovery over a three-year period.

The Lotey Defendants engaged in a "corporate shell game" involving undisclosed security agreements, receivership, and asset transfers to new companies controlled by Mr. Lotey, all while obstructing discovery.

The court found the defendants' conduct to be contumelious, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure and judicial orders.

Consequently, the court struck the Lotey Defendants' pleadings without leave to amend, noted them in default, and allowed the Plaintiff to obtain default judgment.

Additionally, the court awarded full indemnity costs of the motion against the Lotey Defendants' counsel personally, finding counsel complicit in the deliberate delay and obstruction of justice.