Rodney M. Godard

The defendants brought a cross-motion to stay the plaintiff's Toronto action in favour of their own Windsor action, which involved the same parties and overlapping issues arising from a share purchase agreement.

The court applied the four-factor test under Rule 21.01(3)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the plaintiff bore the chief burden of proof and its claim was more comprehensive, the court found that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the defendants, as the parties, the dispute, and the alleged torts were all located in Essex County.

The cross-motion was granted, and the Toronto action was stayed with leave to convert it into a counterclaim in the Windsor action.

The moving defendants sought leave to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiffs to allow a corporation to grant a second mortgage to the Royal Bank of Canada.

The plaintiffs and other defendants opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the grounds for discharging the CPL did not satisfy the criteria under section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act, nor did the equities favour the moving parties, as ownership interests remained in dispute and the proposed mortgage would dilute the plaintiffs' interests.

The plaintiffs, as trustees of their late father's estate, sued the defendant corporation on a promissory note for $171,000 relating to the transfer of water allocation rights for a greenhouse development.

The defendant argued the note lacked consideration because the water rights should have passed with the land purchase.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding the defendant signed the note in bad faith with no intention to pay, and that the transfer of the water allocation constituted valuable consideration.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiffs for $171,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff, acting under an assignment from a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a partial summary judgment motion against the defendants for amounts allegedly owing on a shareholder loan account to the bankrupt company.

The defendants argued the loan was offset by payments made to creditors and unpaid wages.

The court rejected most of the defendants' evidence as lacking documentary support and found that payments made after bankruptcy could not be credited.

The court granted partial summary judgment for $161,724.75, finding no genuine issue for trial on that amount, while leaving the remaining $57,590.25 for trial.

The plaintiff pharmacy brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add four new defendants and a new cause of action for conspiracy against the existing landlord defendants.

The plaintiff alleged the landlords conspired with the proposed defendants to sell the commercial property to them and oust the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amended claim did not disclose a viable cause of action for conspiracy against the landlords, as they were merely exercising their legal right to sell their property to a bona fide third-party purchaser.