Ryan Steven Hanna

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff Yu Feng's action for delay or as an abuse of process, arguing that the 2018 action was duplicative of a 2013 action that had already been dismissed for delay.

The court found an inordinate and inexcusable 10-year delay, counting from the original 2013 action, and that the 2018 action was an abuse of process for circumventing rules for amending pleadings.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, particularly regarding the defendants' lost counterclaim and unavailable witnesses.

The motion to dismiss Yu Feng's action for delay was granted.

This case involved two applications heard together concerning an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium unit.

The purchasers (Deangelis) sought specific performance, while the vendor (Weldan) sought a declaration that the agreement was validly terminated, forfeiture of the deposit, discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and damages.

The purchasers failed to close the transaction on the agreed-upon date due to a lack of funds, despite the agreement containing a "time of the essence" clause.

The court found no evidence of bad faith on the vendor's part and upheld the vendor's right to terminate the agreement due to the purchasers' anticipatory breach and failure to close.

The court declared the agreement validly terminated, the deposit forfeited, and ordered the purchasers to vacate the property.

The plaintiff, L.A.K.E.S Leasing Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a deficiency balance on the sale of a repossessed leased Mack Dump Truck.

The defendants opposed, arguing the motion was premature and unnecessary, and disputed the quantum of damages.

The court granted partial summary judgment on liability, finding the defendants contractually liable for costs and expenses related to the lease default and repossession based on the lease agreement, general security agreement, and consent to take possession.

However, the court denied summary judgment on damages, concluding that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient detailed breakdown and supporting documentation for the claimed arrears and expenses, particularly regarding work done by subsidiary companies and the reasonableness of those charges.

The issue of damages was referred to be determined by the usual Simplified Rules procedure.

A corporate dispute arose between equal shareholders operating several daycare centres.

The responding party removed the moving party as director, officer, and employee and commenced an oppression action.

The moving party sought an interlocutory injunction restoring the pre-dispute status quo, while the responding party sought orders preventing reinstatement and compelling a valuation and buyout of shares.

Applying the interlocutory injunction test, the court found serious issues to be tried and potential irreparable harm on both sides, but concluded the balance of convenience favoured interim measures that levelled the playing field rather than restoring the prior arrangement.

The court granted partial relief to both parties, including an order for valuation of the businesses and interim financial arrangements pending trial.