Sang Joon Bae

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for repayment of money transferred to the respondents over a period of years.

The appellants alleged the transfers were loans and investments, including a $100,000 investment in real estate that appreciated significantly.

The respondents contended the transfers were payments for room and board and other expenses for the appellants' daughter.

The trial judge dismissed all claims and ordered costs against the appellants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's treatment of evidence, her dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, or her application of the Limitations Act.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought partial and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs, asserting divided success and impecuniosity.

The court found the defendants were entirely successful, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding divided success and impecuniosity, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, totaling $177,123.68.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for over $500,000, alleging they made various loans and investments to the defendants over a decade while their daughter lived with the defendants as a homestay student.

The defendants argued the funds were payments for the daughter's room, board, tuition, and other expenses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the alleged loans and investments.

Furthermore, the court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the alleged debts.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a temporary walkway adjacent to a subway construction site during a heavy snowfall.

She sued the City of Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission, and the general contractor for negligence and gross negligence.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found that snow removal was actively underway when the plaintiff arrived and that the defendants' actions were reasonable.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding occupiers' liability or municipal gross negligence.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, who reside in South Korea.

The plaintiffs commenced an action seeking repayment of loans and a share of the equity from the sale of a property.

The court found that the defendants met their initial onus as the plaintiffs reside outside Ontario.

However, the plaintiffs successfully rebutted the onus by demonstrating that they are impecunious and that their claim is not devoid of merit.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the Defendant Fawad Khan for breaching court orders that restricted the Khan Defendants from bringing motions without leave.

They also sought ancillary orders regarding alternative service for future contempt motions, restraining further motions until outstanding costs were paid, and requiring leave applications to be in writing.

The court found Fawad Khan in contempt for one instance of failing to seek leave before bringing a motion to compel undertakings.

Other contempt allegations, particularly those related to appeals, were dismissed as not falling within the scope of the restrictive orders.

The court granted the request for alternative service for future contempt motions and dispensed with the approval of court orders by the Khan Defendants.

However, it dismissed the request to restrain motions until costs were paid, noting that contempt cannot be used to enforce monetary orders, and affirmed that leave applications should proceed in writing as per the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs, but reduced due to their limited success on the multiple contempt allegations.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge declaring them to be vexatious litigants under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in counting 20 motions since a prior order, when the actual number was seven.

The Court of Appeal found this was not a palpable and overriding error and upheld the vexatious litigant designation based on clear evidentiary support, including findings from prior judges.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel defendant Kwang Eui Chang to comply with a prior asset disclosure order and to impose a discovery plan.

The defendant argued the asset disclosure order had expired due to lack of proper service and opposed the discovery plan based on an anticipated security for costs motion.

The court found the prior order remained binding, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding expiry and the delay of discovery.

A detailed discovery plan was imposed, including deadlines for affidavits of documents and scheduling examinations for discovery for all parties, with provisions for remote participation and interpreter costs.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing the defendants' assets based on allegations of unpaid loans and fraudulent conveyance of proceeds from the sale of a house.

On the motion to continue the injunction, the plaintiffs sought to introduce new evidence obtained through the ex parte order.

The court refused to admit the new evidence, holding that a motion to continue is a hearing de novo where the responding party can test the original record.

The court found the original record insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case or a serious risk of dissipation against the defendant daughters, and terminated the injunction against them.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against the defendants after alleging misrepresentations in the sale of a business.

The defendants moved to set aside the injunction, arguing the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to compel further financial disclosure, arguing the defendants had not complied with the initial order.

The court stayed the defendants' motion until they provided full financial disclosure, noting that the failure to disclose material facts on an ex parte motion does not automatically require dissolution of the injunction, and the court must balance the interests of both parties.

The plaintiff's motion for further disclosure was granted.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order of $5,000 made against them for failing to fulfill undertakings.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to dismiss the defendants' motion and to prohibit them from bringing further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order.

The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion, finding the defendants' conduct in attempting to re-litigate the costs issue constituted an abuse of process, and ordered that the defendants must seek leave before bringing any future motions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to compel the defendants to fulfill outstanding undertakings and answer numerous refusals arising from examinations for discovery in a commercial dispute involving alleged breach of contract and trademark infringement related to restaurant businesses.

The court reviewed whether undertakings had been adequately fulfilled and whether refusals were proper under the Rules of Civil Procedure governing relevance and proportionality.

Most undertakings were found to have been adequately answered and most refusals were upheld as proper because the requested information was irrelevant, duplicative, disproportionate, or related to events after the parties’ business relationship ended in September 2011.

The court ordered compliance with only two undertakings and several limited refusals concerning investors and accounts tied to a key restaurant entity before September 2011.

The plaintiffs’ motion was otherwise dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaim alleging malicious prosecution, unlawful interference with economic relations, and various claims for damages arising from an earlier injunction and the termination of a referral relationship.

The court held that the defendants failed to establish the elements required for malicious prosecution, particularly malice, and that the inclusion of parties in civil litigation was insufficient to ground such a claim.

Claims for intentional or unlawful interference with economic relations also failed because the evidence did not demonstrate an intention by the plaintiffs to cause economic harm.

The court further found that damages related to the interim injunction should be pursued through enforcement of the undertaking for damages rather than by counterclaim.

Partial summary judgment was granted dismissing most of the counterclaim, with leave granted to amend the counterclaim to seek damages tied specifically to the injunction period.