Ronald G. Chapman

Following a decision traversing a motion in writing to be heard in open court, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The court determined that the most fair and reasonable disposition was to reserve the issue of costs to the judge who ultimately presides over the motion in open court.

The defendant brought a motion in writing to discharge a section 71 notice on its property and release a $50,000 deposit following an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing it still had an agreement to purchase the unique property and that the defendant caused the financing failure by withholding financial information.

The court declined to decide the matter in writing due to untested conflicting assertions of fact and credibility issues, adjourning the motion to be heard in open court.

The applicants purchased a home in 1988, unaware that a 1984 mortgage registered by the previous owners had not been discharged.

In 2017, the applicants discovered the undischarged mortgage and requested its removal, but the respondent mortgagee demanded nearly $1 million for its discharge.

The applicants brought an application to declare the mortgage void.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the respondent's right to enforce the mortgage had been extinguished by the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, as no payments or acknowledgments had been made since 1985.

The court directed the removal of the mortgage from title and awarded costs to the applicants.

The applicant held a third mortgage on a property and challenged the sale of the property by the assignee of the first mortgage, arguing the assignee failed to issue a fresh notice of sale.

The applicant moved to convert the application into an action to add allegations of fraud, while the respondents moved to dismiss the application.

The court granted the motion to convert the application into an action, finding the record insufficient to deny the investors the ability to pursue their claims.

However, the court ruled on the legal issue, holding that under the Mortgages Act, an assignee is not required to issue a fresh notice of sale if the interested parties received written notice of the assignment.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs in a breach of contract action regarding broadcasting airtime.

The court found that the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario and that the individual plaintiff's claim was frivolous and vexatious as he had no personal contract with the defendant.

The plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity due to inadequate financial disclosure and suspicious property transfers.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $75,000 in security for costs in installments.

The applicant, the sole life beneficiary of a Henson trust established by his mother's will, applied to declare the gift over of the trust residue void for uncertainty and to terminate the trust under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The respondent estate trustee opposed the application and sought a capacity assessment of the applicant.

The court held that the gift over to 'worthy individuals' was void for uncertainty, but found that the resulting intestacy would not take effect until after the applicant's death.

Consequently, the applicant could not terminate the trust as he did not hold the full beneficial interest.

The court also declined to order a capacity assessment, finding no jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act in these circumstances.

In a franchise class action, the plaintiffs challenged the defendants' claims of solicitor-client privilege over certain documents and discovery refusals.

The court established seven general principles to govern the privilege claims, holding that requests for general legal information to understand rights are privileged, and that a lawyer's file compiled using professional skill is protected by work product privilege.

The court further held that pleading good faith in response to a bad faith claim does not impliedly waive privilege unless the party relies on legal advice as a material element of its defence.

The court outlined a process for the parties to apply these principles to the disputed documents and refusals ahead of a continued hearing.