Riccardo Del Vecchio

The defendants brought a motion for leave to deliver two supplementary affidavits after cross-examinations had taken place, in the context of a plaintiffs' motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court applied the four-part test for granting leave under Rule 39.02(2), considering relevance, responsiveness to cross-examination, potential prejudice, and explanation for delay.

The court found the evidence relevant and responsive, no non-compensable prejudice, and accepted the explanation for delay, noting that some documents were already in the opposing party's possession.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs.

The Landlord brought a motion for default judgment against the Tenant and Jeff Donnelly for damages arising from a lease breach.

The court granted partial judgment for rent arrears, vacancy arrears, and realtor/property management fees totaling $87,633.65.

However, the court declined to grant judgment for the claimed future rent differential, citing the lack of present value calculations and insufficient evidence of mitigation efforts.

Additionally, the claim for a penalty against Jeff Donnelly under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act was not granted due to the absence of evidence regarding the value of the removed chattels.

The remaining issues were ordered to proceed to trial.

Following the dismissal of Multiplex's motions for a sealing order and pleading amendments, and the granting of its motion to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10, the court determined the costs of the motions.

The court awarded PGH $11,000 in partial indemnity costs for the dismissed motions, finding Multiplex's conduct was not reprehensible or wholly devoid of merit to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court deferred the costs of the successful Rule 31.10 motion, ruling that the non-party's costs would be determined if he seeks reimbursement, and PGH's liability for Multiplex's costs would be determined in the cause of the underlying fraud allegations.

Multiplex Construction Canada Limited brought motions for a sealing order concerning fraud allegations made against it and its officers, and alternatively, to strike references to its officers from the respondent's amended pleading.

Multiplex also sought a Rule 31.10 examination for discovery of a non-party, George Colk.

The court denied the sealing order, finding that the commercial and reputational interests cited did not meet the public interest requirement of the necessity test.

The motion to strike parts of the pleading was also denied, as it improperly attacked the evidentiary basis rather than the pleading's sufficiency.

The Rule 31.10 examination of Mr. Colk was granted, with specific terms for its conduct, but his request for upfront costs was denied, to be determined post-examination.

This is a costs ruling following a motion where the moving parties sought to remove Miller Thomson as counsel for the applicants and prohibit them from acting in other disputes.

The court granted the removal but denied the broader prohibition, resulting in mixed success.

The moving parties sought costs of $12,365.80 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the mixed success on the motion and factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Given the partial success, the court awarded fixed costs of $6,000.00 all inclusive.

The plaintiff sought repayment of $57,843.87 advanced to the defendant corporation following the collapse of a purported foreign investment scheme.

The defendants asserted that the payment represented the purchase of a portion of their investment interest and counterclaimed alleging that the plaintiff and another individual acted as agents of the investment promoter.

The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment of the witnesses and concluded that the advance constituted a loan to the corporate defendant rather than an investment purchase.

Judgment was granted against the corporation for $65,000 pursuant to the loan terms, while claims against the individual defendants were dismissed.

The counterclaim alleging agency and breach of the foreign investment arrangement was dismissed for failure to prove agency, contract, or damages.