Seong Uk Hwang

The respondents were successful in defending a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued that costs should be in the cause or fixed at a lower amount on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found that the applicants' conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous, and therefore substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought to enforce a written settlement agreement reached with the respondents regarding their exclusion from a convenience store and gas station business known as Wright's Variety.

The applicants alleged they were beneficial owners and shareholders of the corporation based on a verbal agreement and subsequent written settlement agreement.

The respondents denied the validity of the settlement agreement, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, lack of meeting of the minds, unmet conditions, duress, and undue influence.

The court found serious factual disputes incapable of resolution on documentary evidence alone and declined to grant judgment on the settlement agreement.

The court also declined to grant an interlocutory injunction, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the defendant's property, claiming a constructive trust, resulting trust, and equitable lien based on an alleged oral agreement and a loan.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while a low threshold for a triable issue was met, the equities did not favour granting a CPL.

The court noted the plaintiff's delay, the primary claim being for debt repayment rather than an interest in land, the ease of calculating damages, and the lack of evidence that the property was unique or that the defendant intended to defeat any alleged interest.

The court also expressed general concerns about ex parte motions.

The defendant brought an urgent motion seeking an interim order to cease enforcement of a default judgment, prevent the sale or transfer of a mortgaged property, register a certificate of pending litigation, and potentially set aside the property's sale and repossess it.

The plaintiff did not appear.

The court noted that the scheduled sale date had passed, making preventative relief unlikely, and that the apparent purchasers had not been given notice of the motion.

The motion was adjourned to allow the defendant to serve the purchasers and provide them an opportunity to be heard.

The court also detailed the defendant's history of repeated, unfulfilled promises to pay the mortgage and delayed legal action.

KEB Hana Bank Canada (first mortgagee) brought a motion seeking declarations that an assessment of Power of Sale expenses, including legal costs, initiated by 2227473 Ontario Inc. o/a Huntington Cross Capital (second mortgagee) under the Mortgages Act was improper and a nullity.

KEB argued that only the mortgagor could initiate such an assessment or that legal costs should be assessed under the Solicitors Act, and that the Assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction to award interim costs.

The court dismissed KEB's motion, finding that a second mortgagee is an "interested person" entitled to requisition an assessment under s. 43(4) of the Mortgages Act, that the assessment was not a nullity despite the form, that legal costs incidental to the Power of Sale are properly assessed under the Mortgages Act, and that the Assessment Officer has jurisdiction to award interim costs.

The appellant corporation brought an urgent motion for an order staying a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment, staying a writ of possession, and allowing it to repossess the property pending appeal.

The appellant's principal had already been evicted, rendering the stay of the writ moot.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court dismissed the request for repossession, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong case on the merits, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent mortgagee who was at risk of losing his security.

The defendants, an insurance brokerage firm and its individual employees, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim against the individual employees for failing to plead a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the statement of claim did not sufficiently allege personal liability against the individual employees, as their actions were within the scope of their employment and lacked specific allegations of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or actions separate from the corporate entity.

While the claims against the individual defendants were struck, the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their statement of claim within 30 days to plead facts that could sustain a viable claim against them.