SCJ 2022

At a case management conference in a class proceeding, certain defendants requested a timetable for a motion to dismiss the action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs sought to file material, conduct written interrogatories, or summons witnesses to explore why other defendants took no position on the motion.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for interrogatories and cross-examinations, finding them unnecessary, irrelevant, and likely to breach privilege.

Exercising its case management powers under s. 12, the court directed the motion to proceed in writing without cross-examinations and set a timetable.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for injunctive relief to prevent the defendant, who is incapable of instructing counsel and whose financial matters are managed by her sons as powers of attorney, from dissipating her assets and becoming unable to satisfy a potential judgment for failing to close a real estate purchase.

The court found a real concern regarding the dissipation of assets and granted the injunction, ordering the net sale proceeds of the defendant's properties to be paid into court.

The court also appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the defendant due to a potential conflict of interest with her sons.

The applicant bank sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the respondent debtor, alleging the debtor committed an event of default by providing falsified financial statements from the vendor of a gas station.

The respondents requested an adjournment to cross-examine the bank's affiant, arguing the evidence of the falsified statements was double hearsay.

The court adjourned the application to a date to be scheduled, on the conditions that the debtor remain current on all loan payments and provide the bank with full visibility into its financial and operational information.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking the recovery or interim preservation of his vehicle, which had been repossessed by the respondents under the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA).

The applicant alleged the respondents relied on forged invoices and failed to comply with RSLA requirements.

The court declined to order the interim recovery of the vehicle on an ex parte basis due to significant factual disputes, adjourning those requests to be heard on notice.

However, the court granted an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01, restraining the respondents from selling or dealing with the vehicle pending a full hearing.

The bankrupt brought a motion to compel a lawyer representing certain creditors to answer questions refused during a cross-examination on his affidavit.

The bankrupt alleged that the lawyer and his client obtained confidential information about the bankrupt's assets through unauthorized access to his email.

The lawyer refused to disclose the identity of his client or the client's source, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the identity of the client and the communications were presumptively privileged, the privilege had not been waived, and compelling the answers would violate the fairness and proportionality principles, especially given the bankrupt's failure to disclose an exculpatory expert report.

The creditor brought a motion for security for costs against the bankrupt in response to the bankrupt's motion to expunge the creditor's proof of claim.

The creditor argued that the bankrupt's expungement motion was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the evidence, including allegations of breach of trust under the Construction Act, and found that the creditor failed to meet the high standard required to prove the expungement motion was devoid of merit or had virtually no chance of succeeding.

Applying a holistic approach, the court dismissed the motion for security for costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for an equitable mortgage.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to determine the proper amount of the remaining proceeds from a power of sale.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the parties always intended the plaintiff to have a second-ranking charge behind construction financing.

On the cross-motion, the court disallowed the defendants' three-month interest charge under section 8 of the Interest Act, reduced the claimed legal fees, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the balance of the residual proceeds of $99,400.83.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge from his second bankruptcy.

The Trustee and the Superintendent of Bankruptcy opposed the discharge, citing the bankrupt's failure to disclose the sale of a property and the transfer of proceeds to his ex-wife shortly before bankruptcy, as well as outstanding fines and a restitution order from a conviction for operating as an unregistered travel agent.

The court found the bankrupt to be evasive, untruthful, and uncooperative, concluding he was not an honest and unfortunate debtor.

The court refused the discharge and imposed conditions for any future reapplication, including payments towards the restitution order and to the Trustee.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking a temporary order to restrain the respondent from depleting his assets.

The parties had previously agreed to submit all issues to mediation-arbitration.

The applicant discovered the respondent had unilaterally withdrawn $1.25 million from an account that required dual signatures.

The court granted the temporary preservation order under the Arbitration Act, noting that an arbitration award would likely not be enforced by financial institutions without a court order, and scheduled a return date for the motion.

Ontario brought a motion to adjourn the Stage Three trial of a complex treaty rights claim sine die, pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the appeal of Stage One and Stage Two.

The plaintiffs, interveners, and Canada opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for an adjournment, balancing the interests of the parties and the administration of justice.

The court found that the risk of proceeding was manageable, while the prejudice to the plaintiffs and the administration of justice caused by further delay would be significant.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of the accused's videotaped statement to police following his arrest for robbery and theft of a motor vehicle.

The defence conceded the first two-thirds of the interview were voluntary but argued the final portion was inadmissible because the interviewing officer offered a quid pro quo inducement to return the accused to his cell if he provided information about a gun.

The court found that the officer's statements did not amount to a clear inducement and did not overcome the accused's free will.

The court concluded the statements were voluntary and ruled the entire interview admissible.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant did not file a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

The court found the defendant breached the contract to sell her home and awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in damages, representing the difference between the purchase price and the property's appraised value on the closing date.

The plaintiff was also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent mother brought an ex parte motion under the Children's Law Reform Act seeking an order to enforce a final parenting order from the Supreme Court of India, which had previously been recognized by the Ontario court.

The applicant father had failed to return the child to India and had subsequently obtained an ex parte emergency protection order in Illinois granting him physical care of the child.

The court dismissed the mother's ex parte motion, finding it inappropriate to conduct a best interests analysis to choose between conflicting foreign orders without notice to the father.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the mother returning to court after her pending motions in Illinois were determined or upon providing notice to the father.

The plaintiff moved ex parte for default judgment on a merchant cash advance agreement and guarantee.

The court raised concerns regarding the lack of notice to the defendants and the potential that the agreement charged a criminal rate of interest (approximately 100% per annum).

The court adjourned the motion, ordering the plaintiff to serve the defendants and file a factum addressing the legality and enforceability of the agreement and guarantee.

The Crown sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act for currency previously seized by police.

The respondent argued the motion was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior Disposition Order under s. 490 of the Criminal Code that had ordered the funds returned to him.

The court rejected this argument, finding that an order under s. 490 only establishes the right to regain property after a criminal investigation and does not preclude civil forfeiture proceedings.

The preservation order was granted.

Three related applications were brought concerning shareholder disputes in three closely held corporations operating as insurance brokerages and an investment holding company.

The applicants sought declarations of oppression and various remedial orders, including share buyouts and winding up.

The court dismissed all claims of oppression, finding no conduct that violated reasonable expectations.

However, the court found that the shareholders of two of the operating companies were hopelessly deadlocked and unable to work together.

Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of those two companies under the just and equitable ground of the Business Corporations Act, while dismissing the request to wind up the investment holding company.

The plaintiffs commenced an action claiming over $1 million in unpaid loans and an unrecorded security interest in several properties.

They obtained ex parte certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against five properties that had been sold to the moving defendants.

The moving defendants, claiming to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice, brought a motion to discharge the CPLs.

The court found that while the plaintiffs had a triable claim, the balance of convenience and equities favoured discharging the CPLs, as damages would be a satisfactory remedy and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the moving defendants were knowingly involved in a scheme to defeat their claims.

The motion was granted and the CPLs were discharged.

The court heard three service and pleadings-related motions in a complex fraud action.

The defendant Mark Gross successfully moved to set aside a prior ex parte order validating service on him, arguing the claims against him were intertwined with insolvent corporate defendants and should be addressed in commercial list insolvency proceedings.

Three numbered company defendants successfully moved to set aside their noting in default, as they had not been given notice of the default proceedings while a motion to validate service on them was pending.

The plaintiffs' motion to validate service was granted for the numbered companies and one individual defendant who had actual notice, but dismissed regarding other defendants due to insufficient evidence of notice or efforts to serve.

The applicant moved to be appointed as litigation guardian and guardian of property for her sister, the respondent, in the context of an underlying application regarding the ownership of a shared property.

The respondent was assessed by a designated capacity assessor and found incapable of managing property and highly susceptible to undue influence.

The court found that the respondent required a litigation guardian and a guardian of property.

Due to severe family acrimony and conflicts of interest among the siblings regarding the property dispute, the court declined to appoint any family member.

Instead, the court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as both litigation guardian and guardian of property.

The defendants brought a motion for leave under the Construction Act to seek security for costs against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had sued for unpaid invoices and lost profits after the defendants terminated a construction contract due to a loss of financing.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff, a formerly dormant shell corporation with no apparent assets, had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient assets or that its claim had a good chance of success.

The court granted leave and ordered the plaintiff to post $201,765.54 as security for costs, staying the action until payment.