R.E. Charney

Shareholders of a closely held private corporation sought a certificate of pending litigation against the former director's personal residence, alleging misappropriation of corporate funds.

The former director moved to discharge the CPL so that a scheduled property sale could close.

The court found a material non-disclosure on the ex parte motion — the moving parties failed to disclose the former director's responding affidavit explaining that his property had been pledged as security for the corporation's operating line of credit.

The court further found that the primary relief sought was repayment or damages, not a proprietary interest in land, and that the moving parties' interests could be adequately protected by having the net proceeds of sale paid into court.

The CPL was ordered discharged upon payment of net sale proceeds into court, with a disputed $49,990 charge in favour of the former director's law firm also to be paid into court pending further order.

The self-represented mortgagors brought a motion, treated from a notice of application, seeking a determination of the amount owing under a mortgage together with broader discharge-related and damages remedies following an earlier summary judgment decision.

The court held that all relief other than fixing the mortgage balance fell outside the case conference direction, improperly attempted to reargue the dismissed counterclaim, or would have to be advanced, if at all, in a new action subject to issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel.

On the merits, the court rejected the alleged waiver of interest and the borrowers' attempt to deduct again payments already reflected in the agreed principal balance.

The mortgagee's calculation was accepted, fixing the amount owing at $791,159.83 as of the hearing date, inclusive of accrued interest, the prepayment charge, and the tax account payoff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action against a home builder.

The defendant objected to certain paragraphs in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit, arguing they contained evidence of settlement negotiations and should be struck.

At a case conference to determine the timing of the defendant's challenge, the court applied the hybrid approach to striking affidavits and held that the admissibility of the impugned paragraphs should be determined by the judge hearing the summary judgment motion, rather than in a pre-emptive motion.

The proposed defendants in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to strike a supplementary affidavit sworn by the plaintiffs' lawyer.

The proposed defendants argued the affidavit was an abuse of process, violated rules of professional conduct regarding lawyers acting as witnesses, and constituted improper reply evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that disputes over whether the affidavit attempted to change or repudiate earlier evidence should be determined by the judge hearing the substantive leave motion.

The court also found that Rule 39.02(2) did not preclude the plaintiffs from delivering the supplementary affidavit because they had not cross-examined on an adverse party's affidavit.

The client obtained an Order for Assessment of his former solicitor's unpaid accounts but later brought a motion to amend the Order to remove the unpaid accounts, claiming he had not retained the solicitor for those matters.

The solicitor brought a cross-motion to add the client's corporations to the assessment.

The court dismissed the client's motion, finding the belated dispute of the retainer was a subterfuge to delay payment.

The court granted the solicitor's cross-motion to add the corporations, as the client was their directing mind and their exclusion was an oversight.

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim regarding a fire insurance policy cancellation.

The court struck the claims alleging Charter breaches and conspiracy, as the Charter does not apply to private entities and conspiracy requires multiple actors.

The court also dismissed the personal plaintiff's action because he lacked standing to sue on a contract issued solely to the corporate plaintiff.

However, the court allowed the corporate plaintiff's breach of contract claim to proceed.

Motions regarding corporate representation and security for costs were adjourned.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to institute an application for judicial review against the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority and the Attorney General of Ontario.

The proposed judicial review sought to challenge his 2018 convictions under the Conservation Authorities Act and a subsequent restoration order.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed judicial review was an improper collateral attack on previous decisions and an abuse of process, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proceeding.

Following a decision in which the applicant was successful, he sought costs of $23,740 on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that because the respondent's retained interest in the property was contingent, it could not be definitively determined that the judgment was more favourable than the $25,000 offer.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $17,400, noting the respondent failed to file any costs submissions despite extensions.

The defendants brought a motion requiring the self-represented plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff resides in China, has no assets in Ontario, and has over $1,000,000 in unpaid judgments from other proceedings.

The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to pay $100,000 in installments.

The court also awarded costs thrown away to one defendant for a motion to strike necessitated by the plaintiff's delay in filing a Notice of Intention to Act in Person.

The applicant transferred his home into joint tenancy with the respondent, his deceased partner's great-niece, to avoid probate fees.

He later severed the joint tenancy and sought a declaration of resulting trust.

The respondent claimed the transfer was a gift and alleged a mutual will agreement.

The court found the applicant gifted the right of survivorship but retained all beneficial interest during his lifetime.

The court held the applicant was entitled to sever the joint tenancy, converting it to a tenancy in common.

The respondent holds her 50% interest on resulting trust for the applicant during his lifetime, but retains the right of survivorship for that 50% upon his death.

The mutual will claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to inspect documents over which the defendant claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege in an action for property damage allegedly caused by negligent road construction.

The court reviewed the disputed documents and found that most were protected by privilege, as litigation was contemplated early in the parties' negotiations.

The court ordered the production of a few documents that did not meet the test for privilege.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had impliedly waived privilege in its Statement of Defence, but granted the plaintiff's motion to strike a paragraph of the Statement of Defence with leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion to quash several summonses issued by the plaintiff to employees and a former employee of Georgian College.

The plaintiff sought to examine these witnesses in advance of her motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction regarding a hiring process for an Associate Dean position.

The court quashed the summonses for the non-party witnesses, finding the request to be a fishing expedition that failed to meet the requirements of Rule 39.03.

However, the court permitted the examination of two named defendants, subject to the condition that they could not be examined again for discovery without leave of the court.

The plaintiff lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action against the defendant corporation.

The mortgage was given as security for unpaid legal fees owed by the mother of the defendant's sole officer.

The defendant requested an adjournment of the summary judgment motion pending the resolution of applications to assess the plaintiff's legal accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding with the mortgage action before the assessments were completed would contravene the public policy underlying section 6(4) of the Solicitors Act.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary week-about shared parenting schedule for the parties' six-year-old child during the summer months.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing for the continuation of the status quo of three weekends per month.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that a shared parenting schedule during the summer was in the child's best interests and consistent with the maximum contact principle, as it would not interfere with the child's school schedule and would reduce transitions.

The court declined to reduce the father's child support obligations for the two-month period.

The offender, a 20-year-old mid-level trafficker, was convicted of possessing fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Crown sought an 11.5-year global sentence, while the defence sought 6 to 8.5 years.

The court emphasized the extreme danger of fentanyl and loaded handguns, imposing consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm offences.

After applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 9 years and 9 months (117 months), less credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing to compel the defendants to produce documentation obtained from non-parties pursuant to a prior court order.

The defendants responded that they had not yet received any documents from the non-parties and agreed to provide them to the plaintiffs in due course once received.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion as premature, without prejudice to their right to bring it back if the defendants fail to produce the documents after receiving them.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte request to reconsider a previous order that required them to give notice to the defendants of their motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs argued that circumstances had changed, making an ex parte motion necessary.

The court dismissed the request, finding no significant change in circumstances and noting that the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the motion on notice undermined their claim of urgency.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender, was convicted of multiple offences including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and flight from police.

After conviction, the offender cut his ankle bracelet and absconded, leading the court to proceed with sentencing in his absence.

The court applied the jump and totality principles, noting the offender's lengthy record and the serious danger posed by loaded handguns in public, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential townhome.

The defendant failed to file responding materials and his request for an adjournment was denied as a delay tactic.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the balance due on closing.

Summary judgment was granted, allowing the plaintiff to retain the deposit and awarding damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 12-month sentence for sexual assault against his employee.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) framework by relying on R. v. J.J.R.D. to reject his evidence without identifying material flaws, effectively turning the trial into a credibility contest.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the burden of proof, provided sufficient reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence, and properly rejected the appellant's evidence based on a considered acceptance of the Crown's case.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the 12-month term was fit given the aggravating factors, including the appellant's position of authority.