Superior Court of Justice

The moving party defendants sought to discharge a construction lien registered by the plaintiff subcontractor and to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The court found that the plaintiff had no direct contract with the owner defendants, only with the general contractor, and that it had failed to preserve its lien within the 60 days required by the Construction Act after completing its work.

The court ordered the lien discharged, the bond returned, and the action dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 13(7) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay an ongoing arbitration proceeding pending the resolution of an application challenging the arbitrator for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant argued the arbitrator acted improperly by aggressively cross-examining witnesses.

Justice Myers granted the motion, finding the applicant established a strong prima facie case of bias and that proceeding before the arbitrator would cause irreparable harm.

The applicant wife brought a motion for payment of occupation rent and carrying costs for the jointly held matrimonial home, arguing the respondent husband had agreed to pay them.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to strike portions of an affidavit containing without-prejudice communications and sought dismissal of the applicant's motion.

The court admitted portions of the without-prejudice letter to prove the scope of settlement, but redacted other portions.

The court declined to order temporary occupation rent, referring the issue to trial.

The request for carrying costs was also dismissed, as the applicant provided no updated financial statement to demonstrate need.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following the defendants' failure to defend.

The court adjourned the motion without prejudice due to several threshold issues: lack of proof of service of the motion materials, the damages claimed exceeding the $200,000 monetary jurisdiction of the simplified procedure (Rule 76), the action being commenced in the wrong venue (Toronto instead of Brampton or Burlington), and reliance on inadmissible hearsay and unsworn exhibit contents in the supporting affidavit.

A case conference was directed to resolve the venue issue.

Following a high-conflict parenting trial, the successful respondent sought costs of $20,456.56 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant's repeated unreasonable behaviour, including denying parenting time and sabotaging the respondent's relationship with the child, warranted substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $20,456.56 and declined to order a stay pending appeal as it was unnecessary under the rules.

A creditor applied to annul the consumer proposals of two undischarged bankrupts.

The debtors had filed the consumer proposals to escape opposed discharges, but failed to disclose significant real estate transactions and income to the administrator and creditors.

The court found that the debtors breached their duties of good faith and full disclosure under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court exercised its discretion to annul the consumer proposals.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking forfeiture of a $150,000 deposit after the defendant purchaser failed to close a commercial real estate transaction.

The defendant argued it could not obtain financing because the plaintiff failed to disclose that a major tenant, representing 30% of the property's income, had terminated its lease before the defendant waived the sole inspection condition.

The Court found that although the contract did not require disclosure and the principle of caveat emptor applied, the plaintiff breached the duty of honest performance by knowingly remaining silent about the lease termination to allow the condition to be waived.

The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, ordering the deposit returned.

The plaintiff, a start-up, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to hand over the source code and software assets needed to operate its business, and to prevent the defendants from exploiting them.

The individual defendant, a co-founder and the plaintiff's Chief Technology Officer, argued that his corporate entity owned the intellectual property, which pre-dated the plaintiff's incorporation.

The plaintiff relied on assignment agreements executed by the defendant.

The motion judge granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the assignment and employment status, irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and reputation if denied access to the software, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

Following a decision on two related oppression applications where the court found only one act of oppression by the respondent and declined to order a receiver, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

The court determined the respondents were more successful overall.

The court ordered costs of $50,000 payable to the individual respondent and $50,000 to the corporate respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to examine a second representative of the corporate defendant in a slip-and-fall action.

The plaintiffs sought to examine the employee who prepares planograms after discovering the initial representative had limited knowledge of them.

The motion was dismissed, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the initial representative was unwilling or unable to inform himself, or that a second examination was necessary to obtain satisfactory answers.

The plaintiffs, suspended elected officials of a trade union, commenced civil actions against the union alleging procedural unfairness and other torts relating to their internal discipline.

The defendant unions moved to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court determined that the essential character of the dispute involved alleged discriminatory discipline and natural justice breaches within the union's internal disciplinary process.

The Court held that this subject matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, and dismissed the action.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision granting statutory accident benefits to a passenger injured when a bus drove over a raised manhole cover.

The Divisional Court found no error in the Tribunal's findings that the manhole cover was an 'object' and the impact constituted a 'collision' under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The appeal and application were dismissed.

The Receiver brought a motion to approve a sale transaction arising from a court-ordered sale process.

The respondent debtors brought a competing motion seeking to redeem the assigned debt and discharge the Receiver.

The debtors waited until after the sale process was completed and a successful bidder chosen before seeking to redeem.

The court found that allowing redemption at this late stage would undermine the integrity of the receivership process, noting the debtors failed to provide unconditional proof of funds.

The debtors' motion to redeem was dismissed, and the Receiver's proposed transaction was approved.

The self-represented plaintiff sought to amend her statement of claim and obtain an interlocutory injunction to stay the enforcement of a mortgage on her property.

The mortgage had matured, was not renewed, and remained unpaid for over 18 months.

The defendant mortgagee was already in lawful possession of the property and attempting to sell it.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to amend the claim because the proposed amended statement was improperly formatted.

The court also dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the defendant's right to enforce the mortgage, no irreparable harm since the loss of property was a contracted consequence of default, and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The respondents Adriana and Melinda Paletta brought a motion within the applicant Renzo Paletta's application to dismiss the application and for leave to seek an accounting of his management of their mother's property.

The mother's capacity and the validity of powers of attorney were in issue.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the mother might be incapable, so it declined to dismiss the application.

It also denied leave to the respondents to seek an accounting, noting the mother could seek it herself if she were capable.

The estate brought an application for possession of a condominium in which the deceased's common-law partner continued to reside after her death.

The common-law partner brought a cross-application for dependant's support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court found that the deceased's 2006 will was not a mutual will and thus did not bar the support claim.

The court ordered the partner to vacate the condominium as he had no legal right to remain, but found him to be a dependant entitled to support.

The court ordered a lump sum for arrears of living expenses and ongoing periodic support of $3,300 per month for his lifetime.

Following a family law trial where the respondent was successful, the court addressed costs.

The respondent sought costs of $62,799.75.

The applicant did not file costs submissions.

The court found the respondent beat his settlement offers and was entitled to full recovery costs from June 14, 2022.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $52,250, finding the applicant's pursuit of supplementary reasons unreasonable.

The appellant mother sought to stay three temporary orders pending appeal: an order for graduated unsupervised parenting time for the respondent father, a finding of contempt against her for disobeying the parenting time orders, and a penalty order temporarily reversing primary parenting to the father.

The motion judge found that the mother had deliberately and continuously thwarted the father's court-ordered unsupervised parenting time based on unsubstantiated beliefs that the father posed a sexual risk to the child, despite investigations and an expert assessment finding no such risk.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the mother's appeal appeared weak, and that the balance of convenience and the child's best interests favored allowing the father an opportunity to build a relationship with the child.

In this high-conflict parenting case, both the applicant father and the respondent mother sought contempt findings against each other.

The father alleged the mother alienated their teenage daughter, while the mother sought to declare the father a vexatious litigant and requested a restraining order.

Following a judicial interview with the child, the court determined the child's reluctance for contact was self-directed and due to the father's pressure, not maternal alienation.

Both contempt motions were dismissed.

The court varied the parenting regime to accommodate the child's wishes, eliminating mandatory calls and giving her control over in-person visits.

The court declined to declare the father a vexatious litigant but restricted his ability to bring further motions without leave under Rule 14(21) of the Family Law Rules.

The restraining order was denied.

The applicant wife brought a motion to stay the respondent husband's motion to change until he pays $17,672.33 in outstanding costs orders, and sought $10,000 as security for costs.

The husband argued the motion was premature as the validity of an agreement waving financial rights had not been determined.

The court found non-compliance with costs orders and that the husband habitually resides outside Ontario.

The court ordered the motion to change stayed unless the husband pays the costs and posts security in trust.