S. Juzkiw

The applicants brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement and a consent order requiring the respondents to pay $259,570.38.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to set aside the settlement and orders, arguing they were induced to settle by a material misrepresentation regarding whether one of the applicants was a lessee of the business premises.

The court found no misrepresentation occurred, and even if it had, it was not material to the settlement.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, found the respondents in breach of the settlement, and ordered them to pay the settlement funds plus interest and costs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking full authority to conduct the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, alleging the applicant was unreasonably stalling the process.

The court declined to grant the respondent sole control over the sale, noting a lack of independent professional evidence regarding the appropriate listing price.

However, recognizing the high-conflict nature of the case, the court imposed strict terms and timelines for obtaining appraisals, listing the property, and responding to offers.

The court also permitted the respondent to proceed with an access motion separately from the support issues.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and the unreasonable behaviour of both parties.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising from mould in their residential unit.

During the litigation, both sides brought procedural motions.

The defendants sought further disclosure and to schedule continued examinations for discovery, which was largely resolved on consent.

The plaintiff, Aparna Sanwalka, sought accommodations for her continued examination for discovery due to alleged mental health conditions, including receiving questions 48 hours in advance.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for accommodations, finding insufficient medical evidence to justify departing from the standard oral examination format under Rule 31.02.

The plaintiff successfully moved to set aside a registrar's dismissal order and sought costs of $7,680 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff was granted an indulgence and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found that while the plaintiff received an indulgence, the defendant unreasonably opposed the motion on the basis of prejudice that was caused by its own lack of diligence.

The court awarded the plaintiff reduced costs of $500, noting that much of the time claimed was unsubstantiated or for steps the plaintiff would have had to take regardless of the defendant's opposition.