Rocco Giordano Scocco

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 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 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 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 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.