Rocco Giordano Scocco

The plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim in a commercial lease dispute.

The moving party sought $45,000 in security.

The court found that the responding party had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award and failed to establish impecuniosity.

The court ordered the responding party to post $25,000 in security for costs, payable in two tranches, balancing the need for protection against the risk of preventing a claim from proceeding.

The appellants, purchasers of pre-construction homes, appealed a motion judge's order striking their claims against three directors of Vandyk, a company that acquired the failed development.

The appellants argued for a viable claim based on unlawful act conspiracy and that the motion judge erred in denying leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis, affirming that the claims did not allege conduct by the directors outside their corporate roles and that it was plain and obvious no tenable cause of action was pleaded.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the appearing respondents.

This decision addresses the determination of costs following an omnibus judgment in a protracted family and civil litigation spanning ten years.

The court fixed costs for three main issues: a dispute with a bailiff, claims between the Applicant and the Respondent/his mother, and an action against Abrahams LLP.

The court applied both Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure principles, emphasizing that successful parties are entitled to costs and that egregious or reprehensible conduct warrants full or substantial indemnity.

The Respondent and his mother were found to have engaged in abusive litigation conduct, leading to significant cost awards against them, while the Applicant was ordered to pay the bailiff's costs for an improper motion.

This decision provides case management directions in a complex, multi-action family law matter.

The court addressed the status of an appeal and enforcement of previous judgments regarding equalization and spousal support, noting that payments had been made.

It granted counsel's motion to get off the record and set a timetable for future motions concerning a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), leave to bring tort actions (abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering), and spousal support arrears.

The court emphasized that previously decided matters, including equalization, were final and not open for re-argument.

Strict communication protocols with the court were reiterated, with a warning against contempt.

The respondent municipality sought costs against the self-represented applicant after his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act was dismissed.

The municipality argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and an attempt to relitigate previously decided issues, and that the applicant had maligned the municipality's character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the costs application, noting that costs are rarely awarded and that self-represented litigants are not held to the same standard as those represented by counsel.

The parties have been embroiled in complex family and civil litigation since their separation in 2014.

Following a final judgment in the family law proceeding awarding the applicant over $1.5 million, the court addressed several outstanding issues through case management.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion under Rule 59.06 to reconsider a previous order regarding bailiff fees.

Applying the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process, the court dismissed the respondent's remaining civil claims against the applicant and her former counsel.

The court also found that the respondent's mother, who had purchased some of the respondent's actions from his trustee in bankruptcy and held legal title to a property beneficially owned by the respondent, was bound by the court's previous factual findings and dismissed her claims.

The court ordered that if the respondent failed to pay the judgment within 45 days, the property would be seized and sold.

Finally, the court held it had jurisdiction under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to enforce outstanding costs orders made by the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of pre-construction homes, sued the developer, its directors, its lender, and the subsequent purchaser of the development after their agreements of purchase and sale were terminated and their deposits retained.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statements of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and Rule 25.11.

The court found the pleadings to be deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts.

Many claims, including conspiracy, interference with economic relations, and inducing breach of contract, were struck with leave to amend.

Claims for unjust enrichment and claims against the individual directors of the subsequent purchaser were struck without leave to amend.

Claims against the former directors of the developer under the Assignments and Preferences Act and for oppression were allowed to proceed.

This costs endorsement addresses the failure of the Respondent, Stewart Wilson, to pay outstanding costs awards to the Applicant, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari.

The court clarified the specific amounts owing from previous orders, including interest, and directed Mr. Wilson to pay a total of $80,377.22.

The court also ruled that payments should be made to the Applicant's counsel in trust, rather than directly to the Applicant, due to the contentious nature of the case.

The court declined to enforce costs awards from the Court of Appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

No costs were awarded for the submissions themselves due to both parties' non-compliance with court directions.

The appellant landlord sought to adduce fresh evidence at the outset of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The proposed evidence was an affidavit from building management stating there was no record of the landlord requesting the deactivation of the tenant's key fob.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test.

The court found the evidence could have been obtained prior to the Board hearing with reasonable diligence, and that it would not have been dispositive of the lockout issue given the other evidence of the landlord's threats.

The plaintiffs and the defendant were 50:50 co-owners of a social media marketing business.

Following a breakdown in their relationship, the defendant locked the plaintiffs out of the business's social media accounts, and the plaintiffs created a copycat account.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for interlocutory mandatory and restrictive injunctions, and the defendant brought a cross-motion for similar relief.

The court ordered the defendant to provide the plaintiffs with the account information and passwords, but otherwise dismissed both the motion and cross-motion, finding that neither party had clean hands and damages would be an adequate remedy.

This appeal concerned whether the validity of a marriage contract could be re-litigated between parties embroiled in multiple, long-standing family, corporate, and bankruptcy law actions.

The appellant sought to raise the issue of the marriage contract's validity, arguing it was not definitively determined in prior contempt proceedings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding that the issue was integral to previous decisions and that allowing its re-litigation would constitute an abuse of process, especially given the appellant's failure to appeal earlier orders.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal to adopt a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the severance of two existing residential lots into three lots for single detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed reductions in minimum lot area and frontage represented appropriate 'gentle intensification' consistent with provincial and regional policies.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for increased maximum lot coverage, finding that the proposed 34% coverage on smaller lots would be an overdevelopment incompatible with the planned built form context of the stable residential neighbourhood.

An interim order was issued pending finalization of the zoning by-law amendment and provisional consent.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the interim recovery of their personal property from the defendant moving companies.

The defendants claimed a storer's lien under the Repair and Storage Lien Act (RSLA) for unpaid moving and storage fees, relying on a contract signed on the day of the move.

The court found substantial grounds that the binding agreement was the initial quotation, not the document signed under pressure on moving day.

The court also held the RSLA did not apply as the agreement was fundamentally for moving, not storage.

The court granted the plaintiffs interim possession of their property, conditional on a net payment of $700 to account for the value of services received, less credits and costs.

The appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit three detached dwellings.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned a previously scheduled hearing and issued a revised procedural order.

The Tribunal ordered that a two-day video hearing be rescheduled to commence on October 14, 2021.

The plaintiffs hired the defendant moving companies for a household move from Ontario to New Brunswick.

After loading the goods, the defendants demanded a flat rate significantly higher than the initial estimate and refused to deliver the goods until paid.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the return of their personal property.

The court found substantial grounds that the goods were unlawfully detained, noting the defendants' actions breached the Consumer Protection Act.

The motion was granted, with the plaintiffs ordered to pay $1,850 for the partial move, which was entirely set off by a $1,850 costs award against the defendants.

The plaintiff, a party under disability, commenced an action against the bank defendants for alleged mismanagement of funds.

Three interrelated motions were heard: the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the defendants' motion to set aside the noting of default, and the defendants' motion to strike out the claim on grounds of *res judicata* or abuse of process.

The court found that the noting of default was improperly obtained and should be set aside, dismissing the plaintiff's motion for default judgment.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim, finding that both branches of *res judicata* (cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel) applied, and that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, given the prior dismissal of a similar application and appeal as statute-barred.

The claim was struck without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.