6 total
Motion for certificate of pending litigation against disputed property dismissed due to prior release and non-uniqueness.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.
The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.
The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.
The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal regarding personal liability and permitted uses under an abandoned commercial lease.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for damages due to abandoning a 10-year commercial lease.
The appeal focused on two grounds: whether Kevin O’Neill was personally liable as a tenant and whether outdoor storage was a permitted use of the premises, justifying abandonment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the lease was unambiguous regarding Kevin O'Neill's personal liability and that the appellants failed to demonstrate an implied term for outdoor storage or a mutual mistake regarding permitted uses.
Partial indemnity costs of $11,000 awarded to responding party for dismissed motions; non-party examination costs deferred.
Following the dismissal of Multiplex's motions for a sealing order and pleading amendments, and the granting of its motion to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10, the court determined the costs of the motions.
The court awarded PGH $11,000 in partial indemnity costs for the dismissed motions, finding Multiplex's conduct was not reprehensible or wholly devoid of merit to justify substantial indemnity costs.
The court deferred the costs of the successful Rule 31.10 motion, ruling that the non-party's costs would be determined if he seeks reimbursement, and PGH's liability for Multiplex's costs would be determined in the cause of the underlying fraud allegations.
The court denied a sealing order for fraud allegations lacking public interest and ordered the video examination of a foreign non-party.
Multiplex Construction Canada Limited brought motions for a sealing order concerning fraud allegations made against it and its officers, and alternatively, to strike references to its officers from the respondent's amended pleading.
Multiplex also sought a Rule 31.10 examination for discovery of a non-party, George Colk.
The court denied the sealing order, finding that the commercial and reputational interests cited did not meet the public interest requirement of the necessity test.
The motion to strike parts of the pleading was also denied, as it improperly attacked the evidentiary basis rather than the pleading's sufficiency.
The Rule 31.10 examination of Mr. Colk was granted, with specific terms for its conduct, but his request for upfront costs was denied, to be determined post-examination.
Contempt motion adjourned as partial compliance with financial disclosure order underway.
The applicants sought enforcement of a prior court order requiring production of condominium corporation financial records and pursued contempt proceedings against a corporate director for non‑compliance.
The director delivered additional banking and financial documents and advised that audited financial statements were being prepared by external auditors.
The court found that the respondent had not yet fully purged the contempt order because the disclosure provided did not include all required financial records.
However, the court accepted that steps toward compliance were underway and relieved the director from further personal attendance requirements.
The contempt motion was adjourned to allow completion of the audit and disclosure of supporting documentation, and costs were awarded to the applicants for the appearance.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if statutory immunity bars action over closed zoning applications.
The moving party municipality sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of its motions for summary judgment and determination of a question of law.
The underlying action involved claims of misfeasance and negligence related to the closing of zoning applications.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the municipality was immune from suit under s. 20(1)(a) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, finding there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and that the issue was of general importance.
Leave to appeal on the limitation period issue was denied.
