Sharon Ewura-Adjoa Sam

This lien action concerned a substantial home renovation project.

The plaintiff, Hannan Custom Building Ltd., claimed for unpaid services and materials.

The defendants, the Owners, denied a direct contract with the plaintiff, asserting their contract was with DC Builders Ltd., and that Hannan Building was a subcontractor.

The court found no direct contract between the plaintiff and the Owners, but rather a contract between the Owners and DC Builders, making the plaintiff a subcontractor.

The plaintiff's claim against the Owners was thus limited to the basic holdback amount under the Construction Act, subject to proven set-offs for deficiencies.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiff for the basic holdback amount.

Praxy Cladding Corp. brought a motion to compel answers to refused questions and further answers to undertakings given at the examination for discovery of Stone Lamina Inc. and GCAT Group Inc. The court granted the motion in part, ordering further answers to some undertakings and many refused questions, and setting a deadline for further examinations.

The balance of the motion was dismissed.

The decision clarifies principles of relevance and proportionality in discovery, particularly in the context of construction lien actions.

The plaintiff, Praxy Cladding Corp., brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in a lien action to plead reliance on an accepted quote as a contract document.

The defendants, Stone Lamina Inc. and GCAT Group Inc., opposed, arguing the plaintiff was attempting to withdraw an admission that a purchase order was the sole contract.

The court found no unambiguous admission in the original pleading and clarified that discovery admissions are not subject to Rule 51.05.

Applying the three-part test for withdrawing an admission, the court found a triable issue, a reasonable explanation (lawyer inadvertence), and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The motion for leave to amend was granted.

The applicant pharmacy owner sought a declaration and injunction to enforce a non-competition clause against a former pharmacist employee who resigned and began working at a nearby pharmacy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the non-competition clause was unenforceable because its description of prohibited activities was both ambiguous and overly broad, extending beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect the employer's proprietary interests.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that rejected her claim of a partnership for a residential property and found her not credible.

The trial judge had also awarded punitive damages against the appellant in favour of one respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the partnership, upholding the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments, which were entitled to deference.

However, the Court of Appeal set aside the punitive damages award, reiterating that such damages require an independent actionable wrong, which was absent in this case.

This appeal addresses whether a trustee in bankruptcy can initiate an equalization claim under the Family Law Act (FLA).

The Court of Appeal held that while an unexercised equalization entitlement constitutes "property" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and vests in the trustee, the "personal as between the spouses" provision in s. 7(2) of the FLA prevents anyone other than a spouse from initiating such a claim.

The court found no operational conflict between the FLA and BIA, thus dismissing the trustee's appeal to initiate the claim.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated June 29, 2020, and August 17, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $10,000, payable jointly and severally by the moving parties.

The successful defendants sought their costs of the trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the litigation was egregious and reprehensible, including forging a signature and improperly registering notices on title to delay the sale of a property.

As a result of this malicious and unreasonable conduct, the court awarded the defendants their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming a 50% partnership or beneficial interest in a residential property purchased by the defendant Kats.

The plaintiff alleged they had an oral agreement to share the down payment and carrying costs equally.

The court found the plaintiff failed to contribute any funds, fraudulently placed a second mortgage in Kats' name, and breached the purported agreement.

When Kats attempted to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser, the plaintiff improperly registered notices on title to block the sale, despite a court order.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, validated the sale agreement, and awarded the purchaser $35,000 in punitive damages for slander of title due to the plaintiff's malicious conduct.

A bankruptcy trustee applied to commence an equalization claim under the Family Law Act on behalf of a bankrupt husband, where neither spouse had initiated such a claim post-separation.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the right to an equalization of net family property is inchoate and personal to the spouses until exercised.

It does not become "property" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and therefore does not vest in the trustee until a spouse has commenced the claim.

The court also found no basis for a federal paramountcy argument as there was no conflict between the statutes if the right remained unexercised.

The defendant appealed a Master's order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim.

The proposed amendment alleged that a trust agreement concerning a residential property was void because it violated the common law Rule Against Perpetuities by failing to specify a time frame for legal title to vest.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by failing to determine if the pleading was legally tenable.

The court held that under sections 3 and 4 of the Perpetuities Act, the contingent interest was presumptively valid and subject to a 'wait and see' approach, making the plaintiffs' proposed amendment impossible of success and legally untenable.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions regarding customer information and certain refusals during discovery.

The plaintiff cross-moved to compel the personal defendants to answer questions refused at their examinations for discovery.

The court ordered the plaintiff to disclose redacted customer names and contact information, subject to strict confidentiality protocols.

The court refused to compel the plaintiff to interview a third-party business advisor or disclose information related to employee witness statements, citing litigation privilege.

On the cross-motion, the court found questions regarding the defendants' rationale for selling the business irrelevant to the alleged sabotage and properly refused.

Most refusals on both sides were upheld.

The Plaintiffs, co-owners of an income property, successfully opposed a motion by the Defendants to add the Estate of Gabriel Zimmerman as a party to their action against property managers.

This endorsement addresses the Plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs.

The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate given the Estate was out of time and the motion was a delaying tactic, and the Plaintiffs' offer to settle was reasonable.

The court awarded joint and several costs of $45,000.00 against the Defendants and the Estate, with the Estate's liability limited to $36,982.50.

The court rejected the Defendants' argument to pay costs from the disputed funds, stating it would penalize the Plaintiffs for winning.

Dew Point Insulation Systems Inc. brought a claim under the Construction Lien Act against Aqua Mechanical Contracting Ltd., Metrolinx, and Grascan Construction Ltd. for unpaid services and materials.

Aqua defaulted, and Metrolinx was discontinued.

The primary issue at trial was whether security posted by Grascan to vacate Aqua's lien could be used to satisfy Dew Point's claims, including costs and pre-judgment interest, beyond the security posted for Dew Point's own lien.

The court held that the security posted for Aqua's lien could be notionally pooled with Dew Point's lien security to satisfy Dew Point's claims, costs, and pre-judgment interest, relying on the principle that all persons having lien claims are entitled to distribution from the pooled security.

Following a summary judgment finding the defendants liable for breaching a commercial lease, the court held a mini-trial to quantify damages.

The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence on the present value of unpaid rent, less mitigation from a new lease and the value of distrained chattels left by the tenant.

The court awarded the plaintiff $408,046 in damages, plus pre-judgment interest, and $49,046.05 in partial indemnity costs against the active defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants regarding the sale of a property, alleging a risk of asset dissipation.

The motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiffs to address concerns about damages and the legitimacy of the defendants' new property purchase.

After receiving satisfactory answers, the plaintiffs decided not to proceed with the injunction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs had a reasonable basis to bring it initially, but the defendants' uncooperative conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

Despite the defendants winning the dismissal of the injunction, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs due to the defendants' evasiveness and their counsel's aggressive and unhelpful responses to reasonable inquiries.

The defendants sought leave to add the Estate of Gabriel Zimmerman as a party, direct payment of withheld rental income into court, and be released from liability.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the estate's claim was statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the estate's claim was subject to the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, which had expired, and that the Trustee Act did not apply to extend the period.

The court also declined to apply the Doctrine of Special Circumstances, noting the claim had been known for years without compelling explanation for inaction.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of job applications submitted by the applicant in the six months prior to his resignation.

The respondent argued the documents were relevant to its position that the applicant's resignation was unrelated to an alleged poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding they provided an inferential link to support the respondent's line of defence.