Richard Hammond

This appeal arose from a Superior Court order finding a director in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order for document production and examination in aid of execution in assessment proceedings.

The appellants argued there was no factual basis for the contempt finding and that enforcement was not in the interests of justice due to ongoing litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's application of civil contempt principles, emphasizing that court orders must be followed unless stayed or overturned, and that reliance on legal advice does not shield a party from contempt.

The parties subsequently agreed on terms to purge the contempt and costs.

The defendants, Steve and Caroline DeFreitas, brought a motion seeking a stay of enforcement of a default judgment for over $4.7 million, pending the hearing of their motion to set aside the default judgment.

The plaintiffs conceded to a stay for Caroline DeFreitas.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, considering serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, while also addressing the "clean hands" doctrine.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the motion to set aside default judgment, particularly concerning damages and service for Caroline DeFreitas.

Irreparable harm to the defendants was conceded if their principal residence was sold.

The balance of convenience favored granting the stay, despite allegations of continued illegal dumping by Steve DeFreitas.

The stay was granted on terms, including a prohibition on further dumping, with a provision for the plaintiffs to seek to lift the stay if the terms are breached.

Costs were fixed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two properties, claiming a beneficial interest through a resulting trust.

The properties had been registered in the names of her family members.

The court found that the claim regarding one property was statute-barred by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

For the other property, although there was a triable issue, the court declined to grant the equitable remedy of a CPL because the plaintiff admitted she originally registered the properties in her family members' names to shield them from her husband's equalization claims, thereby violating the clean hands doctrine.

The applicant, Eirini Flesias, brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a primary parenting order for the youngest child (J), conduct orders, and the return of her government documents.

She also sought a certificate of pending litigation.

The court found the motion urgent due to the applicant's homelessness and inability to see her child during a public health crisis, exacerbated by the respondents' tactical conduct.

The court granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the applicant, established a primary residence for J with the applicant and a specific parenting schedule for the respondent Paul Flesias, issued conduct orders, and ordered the return of the applicant's documents.

The motion for a certificate of pending litigation was adjourned pending the commencement of the main application, but a "no dealing" order was issued for the property in the interim.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, with Paul Flesias solely responsible for parenting-related costs and Paul and Basile Flesias jointly and severally responsible for property-related costs.

Following a trial in a commercial dispute arising from an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended to be converted into a motion capture studio, the successful plaintiff sought costs of approximately $191,895 including fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that an offer to settle entitled it to substantial indemnity costs after the date of the offer.

The court found the offer to settle was not served within the timeframe required by Rule 49.10 and the offer itself was not provided to the court.

While the judgment exceeded the amount of the offer, the court declined to award elevated costs and instead assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis globally.

Considering the length of the thirteen‑day trial and the involvement of expert witnesses, the court awarded reduced total costs.

The plaintiff purchased a building from the defendant to use as a motion capture studio.

The agreement required the defendant to complete specific structural renovations.

The defendant commenced work without a building permit, resulting in an order to comply from the city, and ultimately failed to complete the work.

The plaintiff took over the project, hired professionals to obtain permits and finish the renovations, and sued for completion costs and lost profits due to the delay.

The court found the defendant in breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff damages for completion costs, recurring lost profits, and a lost extraordinary business opportunity, while allowing a small portion of the defendant's counterclaim for agreed extras.