Ron Aisenberg

Following a failed motion by the defendants to have their trial costs paid by various litigation loan providers, the loan providers sought their costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs to the loan providers, finding that the defendants' motion raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of a costs award against a litigation loan provider and the requirement for court approval of litigation loan agreements.

Given the novelty of the issue, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the self-represented defendant for amounts owing on a personal line of credit and two credit cards, totaling $172,716.58.

The defendant did not dispute the existence of the credit facilities or the calculation of the amount owing, but argued the bank should have extinguished these debts when it enforced a security interest on his recreational property.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the bank had no obligation to extinguish the unsecured debts when enforcing its secured mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with costs fixed at $6,500.

Following a lengthy trial where the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 but the defendants obtained a costs award of over $3.4 million, the defendants moved to recover those costs from four non-party litigation loan providers who had advanced funds to the plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the non-parties, finding that while the loans carried exorbitant interest rates, providing them did not amount to an abuse of process under the 'person of straw' test or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court also noted that while litigation loans should be approved by the court in class proceedings, the statutory requirement to do so did not exist at the time the loans were made.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment on its claim for credit card debt and to dismiss the self-represented defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant failed to file responding materials despite multiple adjournments.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant did not dispute the principal amounts owing and provided no evidence to support his counterclaim.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with costs fixed at $8,000.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for the outstanding balance on a conditional sales agreement for a vehicle.

The defendant argued she was pressured into signing the agreement by a third party and did not understand the documents due to a language barrier, raising defences of duress and non est factum.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, rejecting the duress defence as there was no evidence the dealership was aware of any pressure, and rejecting the non est factum defence due to the defendant's carelessness in signing without reading or asking questions.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff lessor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant lessees for arrears of rent owing under two equipment leases for a truck and a trailer.

The defendants defaulted on payments and argued that mechanical issues with the truck frustrated the lease and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the lease terms explicitly placed the burden of repairs on the lessees and the plaintiff had no duty to mitigate a claim for a fixed debt.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for the recovery of $45,000.

The individual defendant, an officer of a corporate client, withdrew the funds with only one signature, despite knowing the account required two signatures.

The bank mistakenly permitted the withdrawal and subsequently reimbursed the corporate client.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the individual defendant was not an innocent recipient and was unjustly enriched by the mistake of fact.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount plus interest, but the claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant lawyer, alleging he falsely stated on an electronic transfer of real property that his client had obtained a full release of a writ of execution.

The defendant sought an adjournment through an agent, which was denied due to a pattern of obfuscation and lack of evidence of illness.

The court found that the defendant's law statement was false and known to be false, rejecting the debtor's late-filed affidavit as incredible and contradicted by documentary evidence.

Summary judgment was granted for the debt and enforcement costs, plus $20,000 in punitive damages to protect the integrity of the electronic registration honour system.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff and third party, the plaintiff sought reconsideration of the pre-judgment and post-judgment interest rates, arguing for the contractual rate rather than the Courts of Justice Act rate.

The court declined to reconsider the pre-judgment interest rate as it had been addressed, and clarified that the Courts of Justice Act rate also applied to post-judgment interest.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the plaintiff and $15,000 to the third party, payable by the defendant.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The court noted that the plaintiff's conduct lengthened the proceeding and included unnecessary steps.

The court awarded costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $23,420.82 for one defendant and $24,743.22 for the other.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmacy for defaulting on an equipment lease for a telemedicine studio.

The defendant argued the lease was unenforceable due to a unilateral mistake, claiming it believed it was contracting solely with the telemedicine service provider, who allegedly perpetrated a fraud.

The third-party lease broker also moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant's claim against it.

The court granted both motions, finding the lease enforceable as the defendant accepted the equipment and made payments, and there was no evidence the plaintiff or the broker participated in or knew of the alleged fraud.

The defendants were successful in obtaining summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action on the basis that a settlement had been agreed to.

The defendants sought costs approaching $20,000.

The court found the requested amount disproportionate to the modest amount in issue and the straightforward nature of the motion.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Following a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action alleging forgery and fraud in relation to a vehicle lease, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiffs had advanced serious but unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The court held that such allegations justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

While accepting that the defence costs outlines reflected some minor over-lawyering and partial duplication of effort, the court concluded that the defendants were nonetheless entitled to significant costs.

The amounts claimed were modestly reduced and substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a fraud action arising from an automobile lease transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged that signatures on credit applications associated with the lease were forged and sought substantial damages for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court held that the expert handwriting report relied upon by the plaintiffs was inadmissible because it was appended to another affidavit and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

Even if forgery were assumed, the plaintiffs failed to establish damages and the claim was also found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.