Ronald Lachmansingh

The defendant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction alleging copyright infringement, but later abandoned it after receiving assurances from the plaintiff regarding a revised manuscript.

The plaintiff sought costs of the abandoned motion forthwith under Rule 37.09(3).

The court declined to award costs forthwith, finding that the defendant was justified in bringing the motion initially and that the trial judge would be in the best position to determine costs and assess what efforts were thrown away.

Costs of the abandoned motion were reserved to the trial judge, with no costs awarded for the costs motion itself.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault simpliciter arising from an incident during spiritual counselling in which the accused placed his genital area against the complainant’s head while she was prostrated in prayer.

The trial judge had acquitted the accused of sexual assault but convicted him of the lesser included offence of assault and imposed a suspended sentence with probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged rulings on a s. 11(b) Charter application, the admission of similar fact evidence relating to a prior incident with another parishioner, several evidentiary rulings during trial, the reasonableness of the verdict, and the sentence.

The court held that there was no unreasonable delay, no error in admitting the similar fact evidence, and no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings.

The conviction and sentence were upheld.

Foreign defendants moved to set aside service ex juris of a statement of claim and to stay or dismiss an Ontario action alleging fraudulent conveyance of wind turbine business assets.

The plaintiff had previously obtained judgment in Ontario for breach of a letter of intent to market turbines in Canada, and alleged the defendants transferred assets to avoid satisfying that judgment.

The court held that a presumptive connecting factor existed because a contract made and breached in Ontario was connected to the dispute regarding the asset transfer.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction and did not demonstrate that another forum, such as California, was clearly more appropriate under forum non conveniens principles.

Service ex juris and substituted service were upheld and the action was permitted to proceed in Ontario.

Prospective purchasers and current tenants brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered by a former tenant who claimed an interest in the property based on an alleged agreement of purchase and sale.

The court held that the moving parties had standing to seek discharge despite the withdrawal of the counterclaim against them, as they were innocent third‑party purchasers in possession who had paid deposits toward the purchase.

The respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable claim to an interest in land, relying only on an unexecuted agreement with a non‑owner and unsupported assertions of readiness to close.

Applying the principles under s. 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors governing CPL discharge, the court found that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the prejudice to the purchasers outweighed any prejudice to the respondent.

The certificate of pending litigation was therefore discharged.

The moving defendant brought motions seeking declarations that the plaintiff’s construction lien claims were not preserved within the statutory 45‑day period and requesting payment out of security posted in lieu of the lands, dismissal of the actions, or alternatively a reduction of security on the basis that certain amounts claimed for site supervision were not lienable services.

The court considered whether work invoiced after the alleged completion date constituted an extra under the original agreement or a separate contract, which would affect the timeliness of the liens under the Construction Lien Act.

The evidence raised a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the additional work extended the completion date of the contract.

The court also held that a request for a driveway quotation could not support a lien claim, but found that the site supervision issue likewise raised a genuine issue for trial.

The motions were therefore dismissed.