Tanya C. Walker

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Norwich order against two cryptocurrency exchanges to trace assets allegedly misappropriated by the defendants in relation to a meme coin project.

The plaintiffs sought to identify the owners of wallets to which the unaccounted crypto assets were sent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had already identified the alleged wrongdoers, commenced an action, and could obtain the information through the normal discovery process or a motion for third-party production.

The court concluded that a Norwich order was not necessary and the interests of justice did not favour granting it.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to recover an outstanding loan made to the defendant, a former employee.

The loan became due upon the termination of the defendant's employment, and the interest rate increased to 21% as the facility limit was reset to zero.

The defendant argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding good faith and the interest rate.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the loan terms were clear and unambiguous, and granted summary judgment for the full debt plus 21% interest.

The applicant neighbourhood association sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a successful application to enforce restrictive covenants and architectural controls against the respondent homeowner.

The respondent argued that the applicant was not a condominium corporation and therefore the Condominium Act did not apply to justify elevated costs.

The court held that the applicant functions similarly to a condominium corporation and the principle that blameless homeowners should not bear the costs of securing compliance applies.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant in the amount of $72,980.13.

A neighbourhood association sought to enforce restrictive covenants and by-laws against a property owner who proposed to add eight new windows to the exterior side wall of his townhouse following fire damage repairs.

The owner challenged the validity of the restrictive covenants as vague, uncertain, and ambiguous, arguing they lacked objective criteria and could be enforced arbitrarily.

The court upheld the restrictive covenants as valid and enforceable, finding they were part of a building scheme designed to preserve uniformity of the community's exterior appearance.

The court distinguished building schemes from developer's restrictive covenants, noting that under a building scheme all owners share similar burdens and benefits.

The court granted the association's application for a declaration that the covenants were valid and enforceable, and that the owner was in breach.

The plaintiff brought a motion for interlocutory and permanent injunctions against a former employee.

On consent of the parties, the court ordered the defendant to refrain from soliciting the plaintiff's clients, offering employment to its staff, and using or distributing confidential information.

The defendant was also ordered to return company property, produce relevant work-related records, and pay costs of $10,000.

The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent mortgagee to pay outstanding property taxes and a declaration that a Notice of Sale was invalid.

The applicants had defaulted on a first mortgage, which the respondent then purchased to protect its second-priority cross-collateral mortgage.

The cross-collateral mortgage stipulated that upon default and buyout, an 8% interest rate and a 10% administrative fee would apply to the entire principal.

The applicants argued this violated section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 8% rate applied to the entire principal, not just arrears, and therefore did not constitute a prohibited penalty under section 8.

The Notice of Sale was declared valid and enforceable.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to post $150,000 as security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e).

The plaintiff's action claimed damages for an improvident sale of a mortgaged property and economic interference.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet their onus of proving the action was frivolous and vexatious, as there was evidence suggesting the mortgagee may have failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain true market value.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in partial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in fraud and deceit, the defendants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made unsupported allegations of fraud against the defendants on an inadequate evidentiary record, warranting cost sanctions.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $246,213.93.

The court declined to award costs against the plaintiffs' counsel personally.

The plaintiffs, Tajammul Hussain Rana and Premier Technical Consultant Ltd., brought an action alleging various causes of action, ultimately narrowing their claims to the intentional torts of fraud and deceit against Mohammad Zakir Ramzan and 2182224 Ontario Inc. operating as FHS Zoom.

The plaintiffs claimed they were induced to invest $500,000 in a non-party company, ET Zone Supplies Inc., based on Ramzan's alleged false representations, including his purported role as "Head of Investment Division" of ET Zone.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of civil fraud or deceit on a balance of probabilities.

The court concluded there was no material false representation by Ramzan that caused the plaintiffs' loss, and any initial misrepresentation was neutralized by the plaintiff's awareness of ET Zone's true principal.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The applicant, a director of a corporation, sought leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of the corporation against two other directors.

The applicant alleged that the other directors misappropriated returned deposit funds from a failed real estate transaction by diverting them to another company they controlled and distributing them to themselves and select partners.

The court found the applicant was acting in good faith and that the proposed action was in the interests of the corporation.

Leave was granted to the applicant to commence the derivative action, but the request for advance costs was denied.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to hold the defendant in contempt of court for violating a Mareva injunction and subsequent court orders.

The defendant had previously agreed to a settlement to repay misappropriated funds and consented to the continuation of the Mareva injunction.

However, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally breached the orders by failing to disclose assets, moving funds through undisclosed accounts, and failing to provide evidence for his non-attendance at a previous hearing.

The defendant was found in contempt, ordered to surrender his passports, and a sentencing hearing was directed to be scheduled.

The plaintiff homeowners sued the defendant contractors for breach of contract regarding a backyard renovation project, alleging fundamental breach due to delays, defective workmanship, and misplaced helical piles.

The court found no fundamental breach by the defendants, noting that the deficiencies were either corrected or easily remediable, and that the delays were largely due to the permit process.

Instead, the court held that the plaintiffs breached the contract by refusing to allow the defendants to return to the site to complete the work and fix the deficiencies.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed, the defendants were awarded damages for the unpaid balance of the contract, and the corporate veil was not pierced.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to hold the defendant in contempt of court for failing to disclose his assets as required by a Mareva injunction.

The plaintiffs subsequently requested an adjournment sine die to gather more evidence from unnamed third parties.

The court refused the adjournment, noting that civil contempt is a proceeding of last resort and should not be alleged without sufficient evidence already in hand.

The plaintiffs were directed to advise whether they were abandoning their motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against PayPal.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin, place of residence, and citizenship after PayPal refused to issue him a cheque in US dollars upon closing his Canadian account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the essence of the complaint was based on residence, which is not an enumerated ground under the Human Rights Code.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and dismiss their counterclaim for failing to comply with previous court orders regarding undertakings and appointing legal counsel for the corporate defendant.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the defendants had not shown a wanton disregard for the rules, noting that the COVID-19 pandemic and financial hardship caused the delays.

Instead, the court granted lesser remedies, including allowing the individual defendant to represent the corporate defendant and ordering third-party disclosure to satisfy the outstanding undertakings.

The applicant sought an urgent order from the Superior Court of Justice to set aside a Small Claims Court default judgment and a writ of execution, which was impeding the imminent sale of her property.

The applicant, the respondent's former daughter-in-law, alleged the judgment was obtained without notice to punish her for divorce.

The court noted its uncertain jurisdiction over Small Claims judgments but acknowledged the urgency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impending property sale.

The court encouraged settlement, suggesting the sale proceeds be held in trust, and failing settlement, designated another judge to hear the urgent application the following day, providing specific procedural directions for electronic filing and service.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant and indemnifiers for damages arising from the breach of a commercial lease.

The tenant never took possession of the unit or paid rent.

The landlord terminated the tenancy and re-let the premises at a lower rate, claiming the shortfall.

The court granted summary judgment on liability and awarded damages for arrears up to the date of termination.

However, the court ordered a trial to determine the net present value of the landlord's claim for future rent losses.

The plaintiff and defendant sought costs on a full indemnity scale after the moving party withdrew her motion to intervene and set aside a writ of possession.

The moving party had claimed to be a lawful tenant under a lease, which the plaintiff and defendant alleged was fraudulent.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting that because the motion was withdrawn, it could not make the necessary factual findings of reprehensible conduct.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the plaintiff's costs at $68,092.48 and the defendant's costs at $11,959.92, payable by the moving party.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal decision regarding losses from a house fire, arguing the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction in valuing the contents and breached procedural fairness by failing to provide written reasons for the building's depreciation rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's valuation of the contents was reasonable and did not determine legal entitlement.

The court also held that the appraisal process met procedural fairness requirements, as oral reasons were provided and written reasons were not requested.