Scott Anthony Crocco

The appellants sought to set aside an order dismissing their motion to stay the enforcement of certain costs orders from lower court proceedings.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently dismissed their application for leave to appeal with costs, rendering the appeal before the Court of Appeal moot.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as moot, and costs were fixed in favour of the respondents.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claims, asserting a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal found no evidentiary basis to support this serious legal claim or the suggestion that counsel behaved inappropriately.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the appellants.

Alexander Davidoff brought claims of malicious prosecution and intimidation against Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), Rachel Goerz, and Niagara Regional Housing (NRH), arising from a prior defamation action.

The defendants moved to strike these claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that the tort of malicious prosecution does not apply to civil proceedings, that absolute privilege bars tort claims based on communications in court proceedings, and that a lawyer owes no duty to an opposing party in litigation.

The claims were struck without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The appellant, New Era Development (2011) Inc., appealed a summary judgment decision granting fees of $400,000 to the respondent mortgage broker, Rescon Financial Corporation, and dismissing New Era's counterclaim.

The dispute concerned whether Rescon was entitled to commission upon producing an acceptable commitment letter or only upon actual funding.

The motion judge found the commitment letter acceptable, rejected New Era's defences based on fiduciary duty breach, negligence, and statutory violations, and dismissed the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on all grounds, finding no genuine issues requiring trial.

The defendant, New Era Development (2011) Inc., brought motions seeking to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from the plaintiff's representative, Ebrahim Bulbulia, arising from an examination for discovery, and for leave to deliver an expert report.

The plaintiff, Rescon Financial Corporation, a mortgage broker, claimed $400,000 in fees, which the defendant denied, alleging breach of contract and fiduciary duties.

The court largely dismissed the defendant's requests to compel answers, upholding most refusals as irrelevant or disproportionate, except for the identity of one specific private lender.

The court also denied the defendant leave to deliver an expert report, finding that the proposed evidence was not responsive to cross-examination, would cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, and the defendant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking expert evidence.

In a commercial dispute concerning an inventory liquidation contract, the court issued case management directions after the plaintiff failed to file its pre-trial conference memorandum in time to permit a productive conference.

The court scheduled a further pre-trial conference and expressed concern that the parties’ estimate of an eight to ten day trial was disproportionate given that less than $500,000 was at stake.

The judge suggested that the parties consider a hybrid trial format and ordered the plaintiff to deliver answers to outstanding undertakings within 30 days.

With respect to refusals arising from examinations for discovery, the court offered the defendants two options: either refrain from bringing a refusals motion with the understanding that issues could be addressed at trial, or bring a motion in writing subject to potential per‑refusal cost consequences.

The directions were intended to streamline the proceeding and encourage proportional litigation conduct.

The assignee of a mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a contractor’s lien action and return of funds paid into court as security for the lien.

The moving party argued the lien was invalid because it was registered beyond the 45‑day period following publication of the certificate of substantial performance and because certain change orders and delay claims were not approved by the architect as required by the contract.

The contractor maintained that additional work continued after substantial performance through change orders and that delay costs and a municipal fine were approved by the lender acting as payment certifier.

The court held that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether change orders and delay costs were properly approved, whether the lender could act as substitute certifier under industry practice or implied contractual terms, and whether the lien was timely preserved.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

An appeal from a master's order compelling a non-party witness to answer questions and produce documents on an examination under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The examination related to efforts to enforce a judgment against a dissolved corporation by seeking relief against an alleged corporate successor.

The appellant argued the trial judge was functus and that the questions were irrelevant because the court lacked jurisdiction to vary the judgment.

The court held that the requested questions were relevant to a pending motion seeking enforcement and potential relief under ss. 242 and 243 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act concerning property of dissolved corporations and shareholder liability.

The master's decision was entitled to deference and disclosed no error of law.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs against a corporate plaintiff in an action arising from a liquidation agreement and alleged shortfall in auction proceeds.

The defendants argued the plaintiff corporation lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court held that defendants who voluntarily initiated a summary judgment motion should not obtain security for the costs of that motion from the opposing party.

The court also found it unjust to rely on the plaintiff’s alleged lack of assets where that circumstance arguably arose from the defendants’ failure to remit sale proceeds owed to the plaintiff.

Applying proportionality principles under Rule 1.04(1.1), the court dismissed the motion without prejudice to seeking security after the pending summary judgment motion is decided.