R. Lachmansingh

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor for repayment of a $1,000,000 loan.

The defendants denied borrowing the money, alleging the loan agreement was forged and that the funds were held in trust and disbursed in cash to third parties pursuant to a promissory note.

The court found the evidentiary record from both parties to be deficient, with missing emails, text messages, and financial records, and significant credibility issues on both sides.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed as the court could not make the necessary findings of fact to achieve a fair and just result without a trial.

The applicant and respondents are sisters who jointly own three properties as tenants in common.

Following a prior order that the properties be sold with no right of first refusal, the parties could not agree on the sale process.

The Master determined the listing agents, the process for setting list prices, the duration of listings, the coordination of pre-listing cleanup and repairs, and established a blind bidding process to ensure fairness in the event one of the co-owners elected to bid on the properties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a $1,000,000 loan.

The individual defendant alleged his signature on the loan agreement was forged and claimed the funds were distributed according to a promissory note, which the plaintiffs in turn alleged was forged.

Finding that credibility was clearly in issue, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the parties to provide oral evidence pursuant to Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if a trial is required.

The plaintiff brought an unsuccessful motion to examine non-parties for discovery.

The non-parties sought substantial indemnity costs for successfully resisting the motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $52,126.09, finding that the plaintiff's unyielding pursuit of the non-parties over a low-value issue was disproportionate and unnecessary.

The court held that forcing non-parties to incur significant legal costs to defend their private financial affairs justifies substantial indemnity costs in some cases, and that a total disregard for proportionality can be regarded as reprehensible conduct.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment on a promissory note and ordering further documentary production.

The underlying action involved allegations of forgery and conflicting evidence regarding repayment of a loan.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that the credibility issues required a full trial.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion for costs following a protracted dispute over document production from a non-party former solicitor.

The dispute caused a seven-year delay in the action.

The court found the non-party solicitor acted unreasonably in failing to justify his fees for producing documents, while the plaintiff and defendants also contributed to the delay and unnecessary litigation.

The court ordered the defendants to pay $30,000 in costs to the plaintiff and $600 in costs to the non-party.

Following a trial in a construction lien matter, the court determined the issues of costs and the disposition of cash security posted to vacate the liens.

The court declined to award costs to either party due to divided success and the conduct of the parties, including the plaintiff's deliberate preservation of expired lien rights and exaggerated claims.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to have the cash security paid into court as a 'specific fund' under Rule 45.02, finding no evidence that the balance of convenience favoured the order.

The cash security was ordered returned to the defendant MJR.

The plaintiff framing contractor brought three construction lien actions against the defendants arising from a joint venture to purchase, sever, and redevelop residential lots.

The court found that the plaintiff was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act and was owed $70,400 for its contract scope of work plus $21,824.43 for conceded extras.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for site supervision and other extras, finding they were part of the plaintiff's principal's obligations to the joint venture.

The court also held that the plaintiff's lien rights had expired before registration, as the work allegedly done within the 45-day period was not performed by the plaintiff.

The claims for lien were discharged and judgment was granted for breach of contract.