Robert Centa

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs sought over $20 million in damages for alleged mortgage and syndicate fraud, naming numerous defendants including opposing counsel from previous proceedings.

The court found the statement of claim lacked a plausible cause of action, constituted a collateral attack on prior judgments, and was poorly pleaded.

The court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed it without costs.

The plaintiff tenant brought an action against the defendant landlord regarding a commercial lease for a grocery store.

The parties disputed the calculation of rent, responsibility for a roof replacement, and the calculation of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges.

The court found that the landlord knowingly inflated CAM invoices by charging for non-common areas, manipulating the gross leasable area, and charging unrecoverable management fees.

The court also held that the lease allocated the cost of replacing the roof to the landlord, awarding the tenant $331,746.03.

Furthermore, the court agreed with the tenant's interpretation of the rent calculation provisions and found that the tenant had overpaid rent.

The tenant was awarded $493,269.66 in restitution for unjust enrichment.

The landlord's counterclaim for unpaid rent and CAM charges was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, vulnerable seniors, alleged predatory lending practices, misrepresentations, and inadequate legal representation led to a large, unconscionable mortgage on their debt-free home.

Several defendants, including Canada Choice Investments Inc. (CCI), Anas Ayyoub, Blossom Rabinowitz, and Edmond Ohayon, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them, arguing no reasonable cause of action was disclosed or that claims were scandalous/irrelevant.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were adequately pleaded, met the high threshold for surviving a motion to strike, and that the interests of justice strongly supported allowing the action to proceed to trial.

The applicant, Jie Zhang, sought to enforce judgments from Chinese courts against the respondent, Fan Zhou, a resident of Ontario.

The Beijing Xicheng District People's Court had issued a judgment in Zhang's favour for breach of contract, which was subsequently upheld on appeal.

Zhou later initiated a new proceeding in Guangzhou, attempting to undermine the Beijing judgment, but this action was dismissed as a "repeat complaint" and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice applied the principles for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments, confirming that the Beijing judgment met the criteria of being rendered by a competent jurisdiction, being final, and being for a definite sum.

The respondent's defense of lack of natural justice was rejected, as the court found no evidence that the Chinese proceedings were contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice.

The application was granted, and the Chinese judgments were recognized and ordered to be enforced in Ontario.

The court considered dismissing a counterclaim brought by the self-represented defendant by counterclaim, Christopher Tinkasimire, under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The main action had been dismissed on consent.

After reviewing Mr. Tinkasimire's submissions, the court found the counterclaim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The counterclaim lacked a legal basis, was rambling and difficult to understand, contained rhetorical questions, and Mr. Tinkasimire's submissions were unpersuasive, including an unsubstantiated request to increase damages.

The counterclaim was dismissed without costs.

The registrar's office referred this action to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) following a request from the defendant, Dominion Lending Centres Inc. The court reviewed the statement of claim and found it potentially frivolous and vexatious.

Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiffs be given notice (Form 2.1A) and an opportunity to make written submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed.

Pending the outcome of this written hearing, the action was stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no further filings would be accepted from the plaintiffs except for their submissions.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, a lawyer and his law firm, failed to file responding evidence, a factum, or appear at the hearing.

The court found the claim deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts for the pleaded torts.

The motion was granted, the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a substantial indemnity basis due to the frivolous and vexatious nature of the pleading and the plaintiffs' non-compliance with court orders.

The registrar referred this matter to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) at the request of Bradley Court Limited, the plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim), after the main action was dismissed.

The court reviewed the counterclaim filed by Christopher Tinkasimire, the self-represented defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim), and found it appeared to be frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered that Mr. Tinkasimire be given notice in Form 2.1A to make submissions as to why the counterclaim should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1).

Pending the outcome of this written hearing, the counterclaim was stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no further filings would be accepted except for Mr. Tinkasimire's submissions.

The applicants sought an interim, interlocutory, and permanent injunction to prevent the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from publishing a news story regarding alleged breaches of contract and customer complaints.

They also sought damages from former customers who spoke to the CBC.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to meet the high test for an injunction in defamation proceedings, particularly given the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.

The court also found that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favored the respondents.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis due to the improper and vexatious nature of the application, including the naming of former customers as respondents.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1899 sought extraordinary relief, including an order for the respondent, a unit owner, to vacate and sell her unit, due to her persistent disturbing, threatening, intimidating, and harassing behaviour towards residents, staff, and board members.

The respondent had previously been subject to a compliance order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, which she subsequently breached by assaulting a housekeeper.

The court found that the respondent's continued presence posed a significant threat to the health and well-being of residents and, in the absence of any evidence or explanation from the respondent, granted the relief sought, ordering the sale of the unit and payment of full indemnity costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a permanent order prohibiting a resident, Paolo Scotti, from residing in his unit due to disruptive and aggressive behaviour stemming from his mental illness.

The court found that Mr. Scotti had breached condominium rules but declined to issue a permanent vacating order, noting his mental illness as the cause of misconduct and his recent efforts to comply with treatment.

The court ordered Mr. Scotti to comply with the Condominium Act and condominium instruments but granted no further relief to the applicant, emphasizing the duty to accommodate and the lack of evidence of material breach of the prior interlocutory order.

The applicant, Fair Change, brought a constitutional challenge against sections 2, 3, and 5 of the Safe Streets Act, 1999, arguing they violate several Charter rights.

The court granted Fair Change public interest standing.

The court found that the deeming provisions in paragraphs 2(3)2 to 6 of the Act violate the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b), and are not saved by s. 1.

The court also found that the blanket prohibitions on solicitation in certain places under clauses 3(2)(a) to (e) violate freedom of expression and are not minimally impairing, thus not saved by s. 1.

However, the court upheld the prohibition on aggressive solicitation in s. 2(2) and the prohibition on squeegeeing in s. 3(2)(f) as justified limits on freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the challenges under ss. 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The unconstitutional provisions were declared of no force and effect.

The court, following a request from the respondent, reviewed an application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for potential dismissal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The judge found the application appeared to be frivolous and vexatious and ordered a stay of the application.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed.

The case involved a dispute between brothers Domenic, Salvatore, and Bruno Rosso, and their wives, concerning minutes of settlement.

Bruno moved to enforce the minutes, alleging Domenic breached them.

Domenic cross-moved to set aside the minutes, claiming duress, fraudulent misrepresentation, or improvidence, and also arguing they were null and void under a specific contractual clause.

The court found that Domenic and Carmelina (Domenic's wife and a "Settling Party") validly exercised their contractual right under the minutes of settlement to declare them null and void due to an uncured default.

The court dismissed Bruno's motion to enforce and granted Domenic's cross-motion to set aside the minutes of settlement on this contractual basis, rejecting Domenic's other claims of duress, misrepresentation, and improvidence due to lack of credible evidence.

The plaintiff, Brant Securities Limited, moved for summary judgment to enforce a promissory note against the defendant, Donald Goss.

Mr. Goss resisted enforcement and sought summary judgment on his counterclaim, which included claims for unpaid bonuses, losses from share sales, and wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found the original and amended promissory notes valid and enforceable, rejecting Mr. Goss's arguments regarding failure of consideration, authenticity of signature, and lack of consideration for the amended note.

The court dismissed Mr. Goss's claims for unpaid bonuses (due to resolution by amended note and limitation period) and share sale losses (due to lack of reliance, failure to exercise put right, and limitation period).

However, the court granted Mr. Goss's claim for $33,616.60 in unpaid Employment Standards Act benefits, setting off this amount against the sum owed on the promissory note.

The defendant requested a referral under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, leading the court to consider dismissing the plaintiff's action as frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff failed to provide submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed.

The court found the five-paragraph statement of claim lacked a legal basis and material facts to support the $25 million damages sought, concluding the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The defendant requested the court consider dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court gave notice to the self-represented plaintiff, inviting submissions, but none were provided.

The court found the plaintiff's three-paragraph statement of claim to be frivolous and vexatious, lacking a legal basis or material facts to support the $3 million damages sought.

The action was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicants sought an order directing the registrar of personal property security to discharge PPSA registrations made by the respondent against them, arguing no valid security interest existed.

The respondent, a former employee, had registered liens after being placed on unpaid leave due to a vaccination policy.

The court found no valid security interest, granted the order to discharge the registrations, imposed a statutory penalty of $500 per applicant under the PPSA, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicants due to the respondent's reprehensible conduct in abusing the PPSA system.

The condominium corporation sought an order for a tenant to vacate a unit due to persistent and dangerous antisocial behaviour, including property damage and threats, which continued even after an interlocutory compliance order.

The court granted the application, ordering the tenant's permanent removal, citing breaches of the Condominium Act and the condominium's governing documents, and emphasizing the need to ensure resident safety and uphold court orders.

The applicant sought to enforce a letter of request issued by a United States District Court to compel the respondent, an Ontario resident and former employee of a related company, to be examined under oath for use in a US proceeding.

The respondent and an intervener opposed the application, arguing the evidence was coerced, irrelevant, and enforcing the request would be contrary to public policy and unduly burdensome.

The court found that the statutory preconditions were met, the evidence was relevant and not otherwise obtainable, and enforcing the request was not contrary to public policy or unduly burdensome.

The application was granted.