Shaun Singh

This is a costs endorsement following two separate motions in a combined family law and oppression remedy proceeding.

The respondent was successful on a motion to stay the corporate claims in favour of arbitration, while the applicant was successful on a motion for financial disclosure.

The court found both parties engaged in some unreasonable conduct and made no formal offers to settle that met the rules.

The court awarded the respondent $9,151.32 for the stay motion and the applicant $12,774.65 for the disclosure motion, resulting in a net payment of $3,623.33 to the applicant.

The plaintiff purchased an auto parts business from two of the defendants and sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants established a competing business just outside the restricted radius and used a related company and former employees to solicit customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were breached, failed to prove irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for repayment of an alleged loan, and the self-represented defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action.

The defendant requested an adjournment due to symptoms from a COVID-19 vaccination.

The court granted the adjournment and provided extensive procedural guidance to the self-represented defendant, ordering her to file an affidavit, attend cross-examinations, participate in mediation, and file a factum before the rescheduled hearing.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the house was sold.

The Board upheld the eviction without making factual findings about the side agreement or explaining its legal consequences.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's failure to provide reasons or consider the real substance of the transaction under section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act rendered the decision unreasonable and incapable of meaningful review.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member.