Robert Max Isles

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants' counterclaim, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the defendants' conduct to be egregious, noting they unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings by incorporating voluminous irrelevant material and re-litigating previously decided issues.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $23,147.35 against the personal and corporate defendants.

Claims for costs against a non-party and opposing counsel personally were dismissed.

The applicant sought an order compelling the trial judge to produce his personal working copy of the Crown's section 11(b) response materials, alleging they might differ from the copies provided to the defence and could establish bias.

Alternatively, the applicant sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the request was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition without any air of reality.

The court suggested the applicant obtain the materials directly from the Crown to complete the appeal record.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that they had no interest in certain mining claims under an Option Agreement.

The appellants argued the agreement was an outright sale, while the respondent argued it was an option agreement requiring the appellants to fund development to earn their interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation, finding that the agreement was an option and that legal title reverted to the respondent because the appellants failed to fulfill their funding obligations.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraud and uttering, as well as her sentence, following a trial before a judge sitting without a jury.

She argued that the trial judge erred in his findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or misapprehension of evidence in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The sentence appeal seeking to delete the probation order was also dismissed, with the court noting the appellant failed to apply to the sentencing judge under s. 732.2(3) of the Criminal Code for such relief.

Corporate defendants moved under Rule 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a noting of default and obtain leave to deliver a statement of defence in an action for unpaid accounting services.

The court considered the discretionary factors governing relief from default, including the explanation for the failure to defend, the promptness of the motion, and potential prejudice.

The evidence showed the corporate defendants did not have actual knowledge of the action due to issues with service and acted promptly once the claim came to their attention.

The court found a plausible explanation for the delay and no prejudice to the plaintiff.

In the interests of justice, the noting of default was set aside and the defendants were granted time to deliver their defence.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent regarding a loan.

The respondent had provided evidence of the loan, an amortization schedule, and a record of payments.

The appellants admitted to the loan but claimed they made additional payments by cash and cheque, which were unsupported by receipts.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge carefully analyzed the evidence and correctly concluded that the appellants failed to put their best foot forward.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce a second mortgage and obtain payment of funds paid into court following a power of sale.

The defendants alleged the mortgage had been fully paid through a combination of cheque and cash payments, relying primarily on internal payment spreadsheets and hearsay evidence from a bookkeeper.

The court held that the defendants failed to provide reliable proof of payment and that their evidence consisted largely of unsupported assertions.

Applying the summary judgment framework following Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding mortgage balance with interest and the plaintiff was declared entitled to surplus sale proceeds subject to set-offs.

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion concerning unpaid invoices and an equitable counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs order.

The responding party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $36,000.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure require unreasonable conduct or bad faith, neither of which was established.

Given that the summary judgment motion had merit and was described as a close call, the court ordered that costs be in the cause and fixed them at $12,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff helicopter services provider brought a motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid invoices under a services agreement for helicopter transportation at a remote mining exploration site.

The defendant mining company disputed portions of the invoiced charges and asserted a counterclaim alleging damages arising from the conduct of a pilot, including events affecting relations with a local community and allegedly unnecessary flight charges.

The court considered Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “full appreciation” test from Combined Air Mechanical v. Flesch.

The court held that the factual disputes, including credibility issues and the potential application of equitable set‑off, were sufficiently intertwined with the plaintiff’s claim that they required resolution at trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of The Deck Inc. for alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

At the hearing, the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee's rear fire exit door was locked with a deadbolt on two occasions, in violation of fire safety requirements.

The Board accepted the joint submission on disposition, suspending the liquor licence for 17 days and adding a condition requiring the licensee to provide access to all licensed areas for inspections.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of The Deck Pub & Grill.

The Board ordered the licensee to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries, and directed both the Registrar and the licensee to complete any further disclosure ten days before the scheduled hearing.

Following his criminal conviction for insider trading, Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an order imposing sanctions against the respondent under subsection 127(1) of the Securities Act.

The Commission found that it had jurisdiction under subsection 127(10) to make a public interest order based on the criminal conviction.

The Commission ordered a 12-year prohibition on trading and acquiring securities, with a limited carve-out for registered retirement accounts, and a 12-year ban on acting as a director or officer of a reporting issuer.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to revoke a liquor licence, the licensee requested an adjournment due to its representative's unavailability and ongoing disclosure issues.

The disclosure issues were resolved at the pre-hearing.

The Board granted the adjournment, ordering the hearing of evidence to be rescheduled to a date to be set, with a motion to be heard on the originally scheduled dates if required.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board ordered mutual disclosure of witness lists, evidence summaries, and other documents pursuant to Rule 7 of the AGCO Rules of Practice, to be completed 21 days before the scheduled hearing.

The appellant appealed an order striking his claim against a court-appointed trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations related to the trustee's conduct in its appointed capacity and the appellant had failed to seek leave to sue as required by section 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appellant appealed a series of orders, including a receiving order, made in bankruptcy proceedings against him.

He sought to adduce fresh evidence demonstrating that the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated by the petitioning creditors for an improper purpose, specifically to eliminate him as an adversary in ongoing civil litigation.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, which revealed that the appellant was solvent, that there were no amounts owing on a mortgage on his home, and that the bankruptcy was orchestrated for an improper purpose.

The appeal was allowed and all bankruptcy orders, including the receiving order, were set aside.

Two related civil appeals by spouses were heard together from a trial judgment allowing the bank's claims against them.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge's findings of fact were fully supported by the evidence and found no error of law warranting appellate intervention.

Both appeals were dismissed with costs.