R. Macklin

The applicant sought an urgent case conference after the respondent purported to evict the applicant and changed the locks, contrary to a prior court order barring eviction.

The respondent claimed he had not received the prior order.

During the conference, the respondent confirmed receipt of the order and agreed not to take further steps to evict the applicant until a motion to vary the order is heard.

The court directed the respondent to schedule a motion to vary the order, to be heard alongside the applicant's motion for contempt, and permitted the applicant to change the locks to reopen for business.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court declined to award elevated costs due to the plaintiff's prior misconduct involving a purported wire transfer that was never actually sent.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable to the plaintiff in any event of the cause.

The Grad defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false imprisonment against them.

The claims arose after the Grad defendants reported the plaintiff to the police over a contract dispute, leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a full trial was necessary to assess the defendants' motives and to avoid the risk of duplicative proceedings or inconsistent findings of fact, as the claims against the co-defendant police officers would proceed to trial in any event.

The court provided further directions regarding a court-ordered election for a not-for-profit corporation.

The issue was whether 18 individuals whose memberships had been suspended or terminated were eligible to vote as 'regular members' if they operated convenience stores as franchisees rather than independent owners.

The court found that the corporation's Articles did not exclude franchisee store operators from regular membership, provided they contributed to the generation of profits for the corporation.

The court ordered that the 18 individuals could vote if they submitted an affidavit confirming their contribution to the corporation's profits.