Robert William Trifts

The defendants moved to set aside ex parte Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions obtained by the plaintiff in a fraud action involving alleged misappropriation of corporate funds and improper commissions.

The court reviewed the strict legal requirements for such extraordinary remedies and emphasized the obligation of full, fair, and frank disclosure on without‑notice motions.

It found the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts, including ongoing communications with certain defendants, repayment negotiations, employment relationships, and other contextual facts that could have influenced the original decision.

The court also found insufficient evidence that certain defendants possessed incriminating documents or posed a real risk of asset dissipation.

As a result, the Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions were set aside against all defendants.

A related motion by one defendant to strike portions of the statement of claim was dismissed.

The moving parties sought reconsideration of case management scheduling orders that set hearing dates for a bankruptcy application and a receiver’s motion to pass accounts on the Commercial List.

They argued the hearings should be adjourned until the Court of Appeal determined a separate appeal relating to a solicitor’s file delivery order.

The court reviewed the procedural history, including prior adjournments, disclosure orders, and repeated failures by the moving parties to comply with deadlines for filing objections and conducting examinations.

Finding that the evidentiary materials had long been available and that no concrete prejudice was demonstrated, the court concluded further delay was unwarranted.

The request to adjourn the scheduled hearings was refused.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to post additional security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the plaintiff resided outside Ontario and the court found that the defendants had satisfied the threshold for ordering security, the plaintiff argued that the proceeding was fundamentally an oppression action under the Nova Scotia Companies Act.

The court held that the true nature of the claim was oppression based on the plaintiff’s status as a beneficial shareholder and allegations that corporate managers stripped profits to the detriment of that shareholder.

Section 7(3) of the Third Schedule to the Nova Scotia Companies Act prohibits requiring security for costs from a complainant bringing such an action.

As a result, despite finding that security would otherwise have been justified, the court dismissed the motion.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court judgment.

The court applied the four-part test under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a fixed intention to appeal, a good explanation for the delay, merit to the appeal, and no prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to meet at least three of the four requirements, noting a lack of fixed intention, unexplained delay, and no obvious merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant tenant sought a declaration that it validly exercised its option to renew a commercial lease.

The respondent landlord refused the renewal, citing the tenant's failure to properly insure the premises in accordance with the lease.

Although the tenant eventually corrected the insurance defect, a slip-and-fall injury occurred on the property the day before the insurance was rectified, leading to a lawsuit against both parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the breach was not "spent" but subsisting, as the landlord faced an ongoing cause of action rooted in the tenant's failure to insure.

The appeal was dismissed, and relief from forfeiture was denied.

The tenant brought a motion to dismiss the landlord's appeal for delay, arguing the landlord failed to serve and file proof that the transcript of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal proceedings was ordered within the prescribed time.

The landlord had delayed the appeal for nearly two years and only recently ordered the transcript.

The Divisional Court balanced the interests of the parties, noted the substantial change in circumstances including the loss of the residence by fire and change of ownership, and found the landlord responsible for the excessive delay.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order finding that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the claim fell outside the ambit of the arbitration clause in the minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The tenant of a commercial building operated a bar and sought to exercise an option to renew its lease.

The landlord refused to renew, alleging the tenant was in default due to continuous over-serving of alcohol, which resulted in intoxicated patrons causing disturbances, vomiting, and urinating around the building.

The application judge granted the tenant's application for a declaration that it had validly renewed the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's appeal, finding that the tenant was in subsisting breach of the lease covenants at the operative date for renewal.

The Court held that the landlord was not required to give notice of default to refuse renewal, and that the landlord's acceptance of rent waives forfeiture of the existing term but does not bar it from refusing the renewal.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers and the independent tester (ULC) of an allegedly defective smoke alarm, seeking damages for pure economic loss.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the manufacturers whose products he did not purchase.

However, the court allowed the negligence claim against the manufacturer of his specific smoke alarm to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that a claim for pure economic loss based on a defective safety device would fail.

The negligence claim against the independent tester was struck out as it owed no prima facie duty of care to the purchaser.