Sarah Spitz

The Moving Defendants, Fulton Development Inc. and 2580867 Ontario Corp., brought a motion to strike all or portions of the Plaintiffs' statement of claim, which included derivative and oppression claims.

The claims arose from a failed real estate transaction, a $500,000 loan, and the alleged misappropriation and improper distribution of a $327,500 refunded deposit by certain directors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the derivative and oppression claims viable and noting that the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a prior order granting leave for the derivative action.

On consent, a crossclaim and counterclaim from a related 2019 action were consolidated with the current action, and the balance of the 2019 action was stayed.

The appellant, Don Mills Residents Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed its application seeking a declaration and injunction to compel the City of Toronto and C/F Realty Holding Ltd. to construct a community centre as per minutes of settlement.

The application judge found the minutes were not a binding contract and specific performance was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the minutes of settlement, in the context of land-use planning, were not a binding contract but rather a planning instrument under the Planning Act, revisable in the public interest.

The court also found no legal obligation on the City to build the centre, as that obligation rested with C/F Realty Holding Ltd.

The plaintiffs were granted a worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendant following allegations of a $2.8 million fraudulent transfer.

The court considered the appropriate costs order for the successful interlocutory motion.

Applying the principle that costs of an interlocutory injunction should generally be reserved to the trial judge to avoid injustice if the plaintiff ultimately fails, the court ordered costs of the motion to be in the cause.

The plaintiffs sought to further extend a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a multi-million dollar fraud.

Defendant Yahya Dikeni Hashiru, director of Spotless Consultancy Inc., moved to vacate or vary the injunction, claiming he was merely a middleman facilitating a legitimate investment.

The court found Mr. Hashiru's explanation lacked credibility, particularly given his transfers of funds after being aware of the injunction.

Applying the five-step test for a Mareva injunction, the court found a strong prima facie case against Mr. Hashiru and a clear risk of asset dissipation.

The Mareva injunction was extended until further order of the court, and Mr. Hashiru's motion to vacate or vary was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to correct misnomers and substitute "Doe" defendants with named individuals, alleging fraud and misappropriation.

The motion was unopposed for five proposed defendants and granted.

For the five vigorously opposed proposed defendants, the court applied Rules 5.04 and 26.01, considering prejudice and the "litigating finger" test.

The court found that the claims against Parray and Khanlarov were too vague and outside the relevant time period, and against Kovalov, the "litigating finger" was not sufficiently pointed, and potential prejudice was noted.

Therefore, the motion to substitute Parray, Khanlarov, and Kovalov was dismissed.

However, the motion to substitute Halatullah and Kolesnik was granted, as the claims against them were sufficiently particularized or their first name matched a "Doe" defendant, and any prejudice was deemed inherent to litigation.

In the context of a pending summary judgment motion regarding an alleged negligent misrepresentation of intent to acquire property for a GO Train station, both parties brought motions to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits.

The Master applied the principles from Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. to determine the proper scope of cross-examination.

Notably, the Master found that the defendant waived solicitor-client privilege by relying on its counsel's advice to support its defence of good faith and to allege ulterior motives by the plaintiffs.

Both parties were ordered to answer specific questions and re-attend for further cross-examination.

The plaintiff sued his neighbours in nuisance and negligence, alleging that their home reconstruction altered drainage patterns and caused water to infiltrate his basement.

The defendants counterclaimed for trespass, nuisance, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, alleging the plaintiff's own landscaping caused the water issues and that the plaintiff's wife maliciously sought a peace bond against them.

The court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.

The court found the defendants' construction was reasonable, approved by the city, and did not breach the standard of care.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as expert evidence indicated the plaintiff's own landscaping likely caused the water accumulation.

The counterclaims were dismissed as trivial or lacking evidence of malice.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, and aggravated/punitive damages under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the claims for breach of confidence and aggravated damages with leave to amend, finding that the breach of confidence claim failed to plead misuse to the plaintiff's detriment, and the aggravated damages claim lacked sufficient particulars of the conduct's effects.

The claims for invasion of privacy and punitive damages were not struck, as they were deemed sufficiently pleaded based on the alleged intentional entry into the plaintiff's home and removal of confidential documents.