Robert Centa

The plaintiff was overwhelmingly successful on a motion for interlocutory injunctive relief, including Mareva and Norwich orders, and sought costs of $118,417.86 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants sought their own costs or, alternatively, that each party bear its own costs.

The court found the plaintiff was the successful party but applied the principle that costs of an interlocutory injunction are preferably reserved to the trial judge.

The court ordered the costs of the motion to be in the cause.

The plaintiff, a minor student at a private school, sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the school to re-register him for the upcoming academic year.

The student's parents had failed to pay tuition arrears by the re-registration deadline, resulting in the school filling his spot.

After paying the arrears late, the parents argued the school breached its contract and an alleged oral agreement by refusing re-registration.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of breach of contract or that the student would suffer irreparable harm if forced to attend a different school pending trial.

The plaintiff served a request to admit on the defendants.

Counsel for the moving defendant inadvertently failed to respond to five requests, resulting in deemed admissions of liability and damages.

The plaintiff subsequently brought a motion for judgment based on these deemed admissions.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to withdraw the deemed admissions under Rule 51.05.

The court granted the motion, finding that the failure to respond was inadvertent, there was no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, and there were triable issues on the merits.

The plaintiff employer sought interlocutory injunctive relief, including Mareva and Norwich orders, and a certificate of pending litigation against a former employee and his wife.

The employee had created a fictitious vendor company, secretly awarded it contracts from the employer, and received over $675,000.

The court found a strong prima facie case of civil fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of confidence.

The court granted the Mareva injunction and the certificate of pending litigation, finding a serious risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court declined to issue a Norwich order, instead ordering the defendants to provide a sworn affidavit of assets and bank records.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to a community treatment plan and antipsychotic medications.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the Board committed a palpable and overriding error.

The treating psychiatrist could not recall informing the appellant of the benefits and consequences of the proposed treatment during the assessment, meaning the presumption of capacity was not displaced.

Furthermore, the community treatment plan was fatally defective because it was signed before the appellant was examined.

The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendants regarding statements made during a union organizing drive where the plaintiffs sought to displace the incumbent union.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(3)(a), arguing the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

Applying the Weber analysis, the court determined the essential character of the dispute concerned alleged misrepresentations during a displacement campaign, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OLRB under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale was binding and an order for specific performance.

The commercial lease contained an obligation for the tenant to purchase the property once the landlord completed environmental remediation and provided a consultant's certificate.

The tenant attempted to trigger the purchase by waiving the requirement for the certificate, even though remediation was not complete.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract required the landlord to first advise that remediation was complete before the tenant could waive the certificate.

The court also held that while the provision was not a true condition precedent, it benefited both parties and could not be unilaterally waived by the tenant.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for summary judgment against its former clients for unpaid legal fees, suing on three post-dated cheques under the Bills of Exchange Act after the clients stopped payment.

The clients brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim and direct an assessment of the accounts under the Solicitors Act, alleging they signed the agreement to pay under duress to obtain their files.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that significant credibility issues regarding the circumstances of the agreement and the delivery of accounts required a full trial, and that it was inappropriate to use enhanced fact-finding powers in a simplified procedure action.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant, a municipal employee, for statements she made at a Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual general meeting regarding his eligibility to serve on the board.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the defendant had valid defences including statutory immunity and qualified privilege, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing his motion for security for costs.

The defendant argued the Associate Justice erred by not drawing an adverse inference from the plaintiff's failure to respond to a Rule 56.02 demand and by misapprehending evidence regarding the plaintiff's assets and residency.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that the defendant failed to meet the initial burden under Rule 56.01.

The costs award of $8,000 to the plaintiff was also upheld.