Ronald Lachmansingh

The applicants, limited partners in a real estate development project, brought an application to compel the general partner to proceed to arbitration regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The respondents resisted, arguing that preliminary issues such as corporate authority and the enforceability of a release must be decided by the court first.

The court granted the application, ordering the parties to arbitration and holding that the broad arbitration clause and the competence-competence principle allowed the arbitrator to determine the preliminary issues.

The court also ordered that the sale proceeds remain in trust pending the arbitration.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful application to gain vacant possession of a property.

The respondents failed to deliver costs submissions.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were warranted due to the respondents' reprehensible conduct, which included ignoring court orders, using stalling tactics, and attempting to file improper and vexatious evidence at the last minute.

The court awarded the applicant $50,000 in all-inclusive substantial indemnity costs.

Following a trial where the plaintiff succeeded in its construction lien and damages claims, the court determined the costs and interest payable.

The court found the defendant's settlement efforts unreasonable, noting she rejected a settlement conference recommendation and a reasonable Rule 49 offer from the plaintiff.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff costs of $135,000, representing a reduction from the $186,044.09 claimed, along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant landlord sought damages for unpaid rent and utilities from the respondent tenants who had vacated the property.

The respondents, who did not appear at the hearing, made a last-minute request for an adjournment, which the court denied due to their repeated failure to comply with court orders and retain counsel.

The court found that the lease had not been renewed and that the respondents were overholding tenants.

The court ordered the respondents to pay $122,500 in unpaid rent and $1,324.60 in unpaid utilities, plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien and claimed breach of contract damages after the defendant owner terminated their residential construction contract.

The owner counterclaimed for damages, alleging the contractor abandoned the project and left numerous deficiencies.

The court found the contract was a fixed-price agreement with cost-plus ongoing compensation and shared supervision.

The court held the owner failed to prove fundamental breach by the contractor, as most alleged deficiencies were either changes necessitated by site conditions (like sandy soil) or unfinished work, and no proper notice to correct was given.

The owner's termination amounted to wrongful repudiation.

The contractor was awarded $74,259.32 for its lien, lost management fees, and lost profit, while the owner's counterclaim was dismissed.

The parties could not agree on the terms of a formal order following a previous endorsement.

The court resolved the disputes over the competing draft orders, deciding to include a reference to the Investigative Receiver's Interim Report, declining to add a preamble regarding an undertaking as to damages, and including a paragraph explicitly dismissing the defendant's motion to set aside an ex parte order for lack of full and fair disclosure.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation, a Mareva injunction, and the appointment of an Investigative Receiver.

The defendant Bayview Creek (CIM) LP moved to set aside the injunction, arguing the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The court found no material non-disclosure or lack of frankness regarding the plaintiffs' allegations of misrepresentation and breach of terms.

Due to the complex commercial interests involved, including mortgagees intending to bring enforcement proceedings, the court transferred the matter to the Commercial List and extended the interim orders.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The appellants sought to appeal an order of Justice Edward M. Morgan dated June 6, 2018.

The respondents were successful on the appeal.

The court determined costs payable to the successful respondents.

The appellants made a one-million-dollar charitable donation to a mental health hospital for a designated workplace mental health program over three years.

When dissatisfied with the program's progress and reporting, the donor sought an investigation by the Public Guardian and Trustee under the Charities Accounting Act.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding no evidence of mismanagement or misuse of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's findings that the funds were properly spent on the designated program and that no public interest was served by ordering an investigation.

The Plaintiff brought a motion seeking an affidavit of documents and discovery from one defendant (Aloe), further affidavits and discovery from other defendants, and leave to examine non-parties (Nick and Gerry De Luca and their counsel, James) for discovery regarding a disputed property (121 Evans Avenue).

The Defendants brought a cross-motion to amend their defence to withdraw certain admissions and to compel the Plaintiff to provide an accounting of lost profits and diverted assets.

The court granted the Plaintiff's request for further affidavits and discovery from some defendants (Chiappetta, Pulcini, M.J.R. Enterprises) but dismissed the requests for non-party discovery and discovery of Aloe.

The Defendants were permitted to amend their defence with restrictions on withdrawing admissions.

The Plaintiff was ordered to provide an accounting of diverted assets, but not lost profits, and only after the Defendants' discovery was complete.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff for parts of the motion.

The applicant donor pledged $1 million to the respondent charity to develop a workplace mental health program, payable in three installments.

After paying the first installment, the applicant became dissatisfied with the program's direction, withheld the second installment, and demanded a refund.

The applicant then applied under section 6 of the Charities Accounting Act for an order directing the Public Guardian and Trustee to investigate the charity's use of the funds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding the program's vision and timeline constituted a private interest rather than a public interest.

The court noted there was no evidence of financial mismanagement to justify the costly and disruptive investigation.

The applicants requested that the judge recuse himself from the present application, arguing that an endorsement he made in a motion four years ago involving the individual applicant demonstrated an apprehension of bias.

The judge reviewed the prior endorsement and the test for apprehension of bias, noting that the reasonable person is vested with knowledge of the judicial process.

The judge concluded that a reasonably informed reader would not find an adverse view had been formed, as the prior endorsement explicitly stated no fault was found with either side.

The recusal request was dismissed.

The appellant, as estate trustee of the deceased's estate, appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge made several fact-specific discretionary determinations in an unusual factual matrix and that those decisions were entitled to deference.

The court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

Vendors appealed a summary judgment decision ordering specific performance of a residential real estate purchase agreement.

The vendors had refused to close the transaction and claimed they never agreed to sell the property.

The motion judge found the vendors not credible based on inconsistent testimony and evidence from their own real estate agent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's credibility findings or her discretionary award of specific performance.

The court also rejected the vendors' arguments regarding delay, uniqueness of the property, and procedural objections.

The respondents' cross-appeal for additional damages was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of quantifiable losses.

This endorsement fixes costs for a dismissed application for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The respondent sought costs of $9,698.28, while the applicant argued for a lower award based on proportionality and the ongoing trial merits.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found the respondent entirely successful, noted the complexity introduced by the applicant's 15-17 grounds of appeal, and considered the applicant's conduct in raising irrelevant issues.

Rejecting a standard maximum for leave to appeal costs, the court awarded the respondent $6,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff condominium corporation obtained default judgment and a writ of possession against Gladys Li for unpaid common expenses, unaware she was deceased.

The Estate Trustee of Gladys Li brought a cross-motion to set aside the default judgment and writ, and an application to refer the plaintiff's legal bills for assessment.

The plaintiff sought to amend the title of proceedings and have costs fixed.

The court granted the Estate Trustee's cross-motion, setting aside the default judgment and writ as invalid.

It also referred the plaintiff's costs for assessment on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the Estate Trustee, as a non-principal, had a right to assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The court denied costs for the motion/cross-motion due to the Estate Trustee's son's delay in disclosing the death, but awarded costs to the Estate Trustee for the application, finding the plaintiff's counsel's application response was over-lawyered.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and to add four sub-trades as parties in a residential construction dispute.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The Master denied the addition of the sub-trades, finding it would create an unwieldy and cumbersome litigation file and that there was no privity of contract between the defendants and the sub-trades.

The Master allowed various housekeeping amendments to the pleadings but denied certain other substantive amendments.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants in a construction contract dispute brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to add four sub-trades as parties and to claim aggravated and punitive damages against the plaintiff homebuilder.

The court denied the request to add the sub-trades, finding it would create an unwieldy and cumbersome litigation file with no privity of contract between the defendants and the sub-trades.

However, the court allowed the amendments to the pleadings regarding the damages claims, noting that while the defendants' case appeared weak, it was not for a Master to determine the merits at this stage.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion seeking a preservation order under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to secure an alleged constructive trust interest in a residential property that was about to be sold.

The moving party had supplied services and materials for the construction of the property but failed to register a construction lien within the time limits prescribed by the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff argued that if the contract were voidable due to non‑registration under the New Home Warranty Program Act, he could assert a constructive trust claim and obtain security through a preservation order.

The court held that the Construction Lien Act governs claims arising from the supply of services or materials to an improvement regardless of whether the claim is framed in contract or constructive trust.

Allowing a preservation order would undermine the statutory lien scheme and permit the plaintiff to circumvent the Act’s deadlines.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on an approved screening device test and breathalyzer results.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to demand the approved screening device test under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The officer's testimony was equivocal and inconsistent with his notes and the testimony of other Crown witnesses.

The court excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious Charter breach and credibility concerns regarding the officer's investigation and testimony.

Without the breathalyzer evidence, the Crown failed to prove impaired driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both counts were dismissed.