Sanfilippo

The respondent law firm brought a motion to quash a Registrar's Order for Delivery and Assessment obtained by its former client.

The client had certified in a requisition that he had requested the firm's accounts but had not received them.

The court found that the firm had in fact delivered all accounts to the client at or about the dates they were rendered.

Because the requisition was factually incorrect, the court quashed the Registrar's Order, without prejudice to the client bringing an Application for an order directing the assessment of the accounts under section 4 of the Solicitors Act.

The moving party, an estate trustee, brought a motion to add her sister as a respondent to two consolidated applications: an application to pass accounts and an application for the removal of the estate trustee.

The sister and her daughter opposed the joinder.

The court found that the sister was an interested party who had demanded an accounting and was a possible beneficiary of the estate.

Applying Rules 5.03 and 9.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that the sister was a necessary party whose rights could be affected by the outcome.

The motion was granted, and the sister was ordered to be added as a party to both applications.

The moving party sought to set aside or vary an ex parte order that required her to file an application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee or be deemed to have renounced.

The court found that the responding party failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, specifically omitting that the moving party's counsel had responded and sought production of the drafting lawyer's file.

The ex parte order was set aside under Rule 39.01(6).

However, the court declined to grant the moving party's requested variation to compel production of the file, finding it overly broad for a motion to vary.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The plaintiff succeeded on a motion to refer a construction lien action to an Associate Judge for trial.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants defended the action disproportionately.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded as the motion raised a novel point of law.

The court found the issue was not novel but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $4,975.00.

The plaintiff sought costs following its successful resistance of the defendants' summary judgment motion and its successful motion for leave to deliver late affidavit evidence.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $42,085.84 for the summary judgment motion, reducing the claimed amount due to over-lawyering and deferring the costs of expert reports to trial.

The court also awarded $2,500 for the evidentiary leave motion, reducing the claimed amount because the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's breach of the Rules.

The defendants requested an urgent case management conference because the self-represented plaintiffs failed to comply with a previously ordered timetable for Master's motions and sought broader relief than initially identified.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay, which was due to an internet issue.

To ensure all motions could be heard together, the court vacated the previously scheduled dates, granted the plaintiffs time to seek legal advice, and established a revised timetable for the pending Master's motions.

The plaintiff previously obtained a Mareva Order preserving up to $327,000 from the sale of the responding defendant's property.

On the return of the motion, the responding defendant's materials were not filed in time.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment to file reply materials and conduct cross-examinations.

On consent, the court extended the Mareva Order pending a full hearing, released $70,000 to the responding defendant for living expenses and legal fees, and set a timetable for the remaining steps in the action.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze the proceeds of a real estate sale scheduled to close the same day.

The court declined to proceed without notice, finding that the plaintiff had already threatened the defendant with the motion and had the ability to serve him.

The court recessed the motion until the afternoon to allow the plaintiff to provide notice to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendant, alleging fraud and breach of trust regarding funds advanced for a foreign property investment.

The plaintiff sought to preserve the net sale proceeds of the defendant's Ontario property, which was scheduled to close on the day of the hearing.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of dissipation of assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court granted an interim Mareva injunction preserving up to $327,000 of the net sale proceeds for eight days, with the remainder of the motion adjourned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendants in a Simplified Procedure action regarding a defaulted promissory note.

The court declined to grant the motion due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including ambiguity regarding service, the omission of the Noting in Default and Statement of Claim, and the improper reliance on hearsay evidence from the plaintiffs' lawyer on central issues.

The plaintiffs were directed to address the deficiencies and re-file the motion.

At the sixth case management conference, the court addressed the scheduling of various motions proposed by the parties, including motions for summary judgment, undertakings, and further examinations.

The court granted a motion on consent to allow a plaintiff who had reached the age of majority to continue the action in her own capacity.

The court directed that the motions regarding undertakings and refusals be heard by the Case Management Master before any summary judgment motions are scheduled, emphasizing the need for effective case management.

At a case conference, the Varone Parties sought compliance with a previous discovery plan order made by Master Muir, which the Concord Adex Parties had failed to meet.

The court ordered the Concord Adex Parties to serve their Affidavit of Documents within 10 days and varied the litigation timetable accordingly.

The court also provided directions on how to address an undetermined costs issue from the previous motion, as Master Muir had passed away before rendering his decision on costs.

A trial management conference was held to provide directions for an upcoming 10-day virtual trial.

The action was proceeding against only one defendant, the others having been dismissed.

The court provided directions regarding the use of a shared document folder, the preparation of trial materials including an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Document Book, and the completion of a Report to Trial Judge.

The court also scheduled a practice run for the virtual platform and provided guidance on managing exhibits and video presence during the trial.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision granting the plaintiffs an extension of time to set their medical malpractice action down for trial under Rule 48.14(7).

The Superior Court found that the Master erred in law by applying a 'contextual analysis' that relaxed the requirement to meet both parts of the conjunctive test for delay, and erred in fact by relying on evidence outside the record.

However, exercising its own discretion under s. 134 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Court determined the motion on the record and found the plaintiffs had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The Court affirmed the 12-month extension but set aside the Master's costs award, ordering no costs for the motion.

The Attorney General of Ontario previously obtained an order approving the settlement of an application under the Civil Remedies Act.

Following the release of the endorsement, counsel for the Attorney General wrote to the court to clarify a point in their factum regarding the timing of a cited Divisional Court decision relative to the enactment of section 18.1 of the Act.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement acknowledging the clarification, noting that while it might have affected the analysis, it did not change the decision to grant the relief sought.

The plaintiffs and defendants own contiguous commercial retail centres and share reciprocal easements for access and parking.

The defendants proposed a major redevelopment that would expand their building footprint onto lands subject to the plaintiffs' easement, eliminating hundreds of surface parking spaces.

The plaintiffs sought declarations and an injunction to prevent the development.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proposed development would substantially interfere with the plaintiffs' easement rights and overburden the remaining shared parking.

The court granted specific declarations confirming the breach of the easements but declined to issue a permanent injunction, finding it unnecessary given existing structural safeguards.

The plaintiff franchisor requested the immediate scheduling of a motion for injunctive relief on the basis of urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the defendant franchisees opposed.

The court found that the dispute, which centered on unpaid royalty fees and had been ongoing since September 2019, did not meet the criteria for urgent scheduling under the court's COVID-19 notices.

The request for immediate scheduling was denied, and a timetable was set for the motions to be heard at a later date.

The applicant sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the respondent from evicting her from a commercial rental unit after the original hearing date was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a case conference, the parties agreed to a timetable to prepare the application for adjudication.

On consent, the respondent agreed not to take any steps to evict the applicant while she complied with the timetable, rendering the motion for interim relief unnecessary.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement against the plaintiff estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale totaling over $67,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for proportionality given the settlement amount of $105,000.

The court awarded costs to the defendants in the total amount of $45,000, payable by the estate.

The defendant Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought $500,000 from the co-defendants for their alleged failure to respond to an application before the HRTO.

The court found that the notice of application lacked clarity, particularity, and a legal basis, failing to plead a cause of action against any of the defendants.

The court concluded the application was frivolous and vexatious and dismissed it.