Rhea Mathew

On a motion concerning appellate jurisdiction, the court held that paragraph one of an order dated June 20, 2025 was interlocutory and did not prevent the respondents from relying on prior findings made in related proceedings.

Because the order was interlocutory, the appeal could not proceed and was quashed.

The court awarded costs of the motion to the moving party on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their statement of claim and to add their daughter and son-in-law (the "proposed plaintiffs") as party plaintiffs, to whom they had transferred the property at issue.

The defendants opposed the addition of the new parties and related amendments.

The court dismissed the request to add the proposed plaintiffs, finding no evidence of an assignment of the cause of action and that they were not necessary parties under Rule 5.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted leave for other requested amendments to the statement of claim.

Costs were ordered against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs (Securitas) brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), and a Norwich Order against the defendants, alleging fraud related to sham alarm system accounts.

The court dismissed the Mareva injunction against all defendants and the CPL against the Eagle Defendants, finding that Securitas had not established a strong prima facie case of fraud against the Eagle Defendants, nor sufficient evidence of assets or dissipation risk for the other defendants (Rahman and Philip).

However, the court granted a Norwich Order against Rahman and Philip for financial disclosure and, by consent, ordered the Eagle Defendants to provide similar financial information.

The appellant, a self-represented tenant living in a commercial unit, sought an interim stay of a writ of possession pending her appeal of the application judge's decision.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously determined the tenancy was commercial, not residential.

The respondent landlord faced municipal fines for zoning violations due to the appellant's residential use of the commercial property.

The Divisional Court found the appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but granted a brief extension of the stay until April 21, 2023, to allow the appellant more time to vacate, balancing her personal circumstances against the landlord's need for compliance.