Robert Centa

The applicants sought an oppression remedy against the condominium corporation regarding alleged inaccurate status certificate disclosures about balcony repairs and a solarium, and subsequent oppressive conduct.

The court found the original status certificate accurate regarding balcony assessments and solarium status.

However, it found the corporation engaged in oppressive conduct by deliberately altering and falsifying a status certificate provided to the applicants post-purchase and then lying about its authenticity.

The applicants were awarded $75,000 in damages and exempted from solarium demolition costs, but remained responsible for balcony special assessments.

The defendant Crown moved to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The court found that the allegations against Crown counsel, the Premier, the Attorney General, and the judiciary disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as they were protected by absolute privilege, lacked a private law duty of care, or were barred by statutory immunity.

The court also found that the remaining allegations were an abuse of process, as they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in multiple prior proceedings commenced by the plaintiff.

The statement of claim was struck out without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the Crown.

The registrar's office referred a motion to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, following a request from the defendant's lawyers to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The court had previously notified the self-represented plaintiff, Said Abdulkadir, to provide submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed, but no submissions were received.

The court reviewed the statement of claim and concluded that it was frivolous and vexatious, lacking a legal basis or material facts to support a claim.

Consequently, the action was dismissed without costs.

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging it was frivolous and vexatious.

The court, after giving the self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to make submissions (which were not provided), reviewed the statement of claim.

The court found the claim, which sought $50 million based on a brief, unsubstantiated account of missed flights and police questioning, lacked a legal basis and material facts.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous and vexatious, without costs.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant and its guarantor for breach of a commercial lease.

The tenant failed to take possession and begin fixturing the premises, arguing the landlord had not completed its work to satisfaction.

The court interpreted the lease, finding that the tenant was obliged to take possession when the landlord's work was "sufficiently complete to permit fixturing," not fully complete.

The tenant's failure to take possession constituted repudiation of the lease.

The court awarded the landlord damages, holding both the tenant and the guarantor liable.

B.B. appealed decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed her incapacity regarding treatment with antipsychotic medications and a community treatment plan, and upheld a community treatment order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusions regarding B.B.'s lack of capacity, the likelihood of substantial mental deterioration without continuing care, Dr. Pittman's consultations with health practitioners, or the substitute decision-maker's proper consent to the treatment plan.

The registrar's office referred two statements of claim to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, following a request from the defendant, as the claims appeared frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered that notice be given to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01(3)(1) regarding the potential dismissal of the actions.

Pending the outcome of a written hearing, the plaintiff's actions were stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no further filings were to be accepted except the plaintiff's written submissions.

The applicants, Inivos Limited and Warrick Fentiman, brought a motion seeking a civil contempt order against the respondent, Richard Marsh, for allegedly breaching a prior Ontario Superior Court order that recognized and enforced English High Court injunctions prohibiting him from publishing defamatory statements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the November 7 order was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to require the respondent to take positive steps to remove pre-existing defamatory content from the internet.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had actual knowledge of the order's full terms until January 1, 2024, and he posted no new violating material after that date.

The court also stated it would have exercised its discretion to decline a contempt finding, as contempt is a remedy of last resort and there had been substantial compliance since the respondent gained full knowledge of the order.

The defendant, Executive Director of the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had previously amended the claim twice.

The court found the claim, which alleged unspecified torts related to the plaintiff's troubled relationship with McMaster University and the Secretariat's handling of research misconduct reports, disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court determined that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts supporting a private law duty of care or any recognized tort against the defendant, and that the claim consisted of bald, conclusory statements.

Given the repeated failures to cure deficiencies, leave to amend was denied, and the action was dismissed.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claim of its policyholder, Farina Nazir, and the crossclaim of 2212478 Ontario Inc. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised could not be readily bifurcated from the main action and presented a serious prospect of inconsistent findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

The judge determined that a just adjudication required a complete understanding of the allegedly fraudulent transactions, which had not yet been fully discovered.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a rare procedure, reserved for the clearest of cases, and was not appropriate here due to the risks of delay, expense, inefficiency, and inconsistent findings.

The action was ordered to proceed to trial expeditiously.

The Atkinson Housing Co-operative Inc. applied for a declaration that no member occupied a specific three-bedroom townhouse and for a writ of possession.

The respondent, Hector F. Osorio, claimed to be a member entitled to occupy the unit.

The court found no merit in Osorio's claim, determining he had not been a member since 2011 and had formally resigned in 2018.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously found Osorio was not a member and ordered his eviction, but that decision was overturned on appeal due to the Board's lack of jurisdiction to evict non-members.

The Superior Court, exercising its jurisdiction under the Co-operative Corporations Act, confirmed Osorio's non-member status and granted the co-op's application for a declaration and writ of possession, finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the writ.

The lender, Alleghe Mortgage Fund Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment against the borrower, Winona Park Towns Ltd., and its principal, Pedram Talebzadeh, seeking repayment of a $2 million loan secured by a second mortgage and guarantees, and leave to issue a writ of possession.

The borrower and guarantor opposed the motion and brought a counterclaim, alleging the lender acted in bad faith, that the notice of sale was invalid, and seeking to redeem the mortgage based on an earlier debt amount.

The court found no genuine issues requiring a trial, dismissing all arguments raised by the borrower and guarantor, and granted summary judgment in favour of the lender, including the dismissal of the counterclaim and leave to issue a writ of possession.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the Social Benefits Tribunal and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, seeking $152 million in damages and other relief following an unsuccessful appeal for disability benefits.

The defendant requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the Tribunal is not a suable entity and the defendants are protected by statutory immunity under the Ontario Works Act.

The action was dismissed in its entirety without costs.

The plaintiff, Roger Foley, failed to comply with a prior court order requiring payment of over $100,000 in costs to the defendants by August 30, 2024.

Despite being given an opportunity to respond, the plaintiff did not dispute non-payment and failed to provide sufficient evidence of impecuniosity.

The court dismissed the action against all remaining defendants, refusing a further extension of time or to convert unpaid costs to costs in the cause, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders.

The plaintiff law firm sought an assessment of its legal fees in the amount of $25,165.63 against its former client, who had retained the firm on a contingency fee basis for a wrongful dismissal claim.

The client terminated the retainer after the firm made several errors, including naming the wrong parties and discontinuing the action against one defendant without instructions.

The court found the firm's account to be unreasonable, noting the lack of first-hand evidence from the timekeepers, vague docket entries, and billing for time after the retainer was terminated.

Applying the Cohen factors, the court assessed the fair and reasonable value of the legal services at $2,000.

The court, acting on a request from the Social Benefits Tribunal under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, referred a motion to consider dismissing the plaintiff's statement of claim as potentially frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered that notice be given to the plaintiff to make submissions, stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing, and restricted further filings by the plaintiff, except for submissions in response to the notice.

The plaintiff, Ahmad Mohammad, commenced an action against university officials and another individual, alleging privacy breaches, misdiagnosis, and conspiracy.

The court, on its own initiative following a referral, reviewed the statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to its lack of a plausible cause of action, absence of material facts supporting serious allegations, and the plaintiff's history of repeated meritless litigation.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide submissions, the plaintiff failed to do so.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against three obstetricians and a hospital regarding the birth of the infant plaintiff.

The mother alleged that she did not consent to the use of a vacuum or forceps during delivery, claiming medical battery and lack of informed consent.

She also alleged that the doctors breached the standard of care in their antenatal record keeping, failure to recommend a Caesarean section earlier, and the decision to attempt a vacuum and forceps-assisted delivery.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the mother had provided informed consent to the use of the instruments in the face of an urgent obstetrical situation involving fetal distress.

The court also found that the doctors met the standard of care in all respects and that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the neonatal injuries caused the infant plaintiff's subsequent neurodevelopmental limitations.

The applicant, Roger Vanden Berghe NV (RVB), sought to enforce a final judgment issued by a Belgian court against the respondent, Korhani of Canada Inc. RVB's evidence, largely uncontested, established that Korhani owed RVB for unpaid invoices, and the Belgian court had granted a default judgment after proper service.

Korhani disputed the amounts owing and argued lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice, but provided no evidence to support these claims.

The court applied a generous and liberal approach to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, finding that the Belgian court had competent jurisdiction due to a real and substantial connection (contractual jurisdiction clause, place of business, and order processing).

The court dismissed Korhani's defences of fraud and lack of natural justice, as they related to the merits of the original dispute rather than procedural fairness, and no evidence was presented to support them.

The Belgian judgment was recognized and enforced, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiff's action against the City of Toronto and several individuals was dismissed by the court on its own motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the statement of claim lacked material facts against some defendants, was brought far outside the limitation period for events dating back to 1996-2000, contained serious but unsubstantiated allegations, and represented a re-litigation of matters previously decided against the plaintiff in numerous prior proceedings and appeals.