Tanya Walker

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 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 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 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.

In a family dispute over their mother's property, the defendant sister sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The moving plaintiff sister sought an order permitting her to attend the cross-examination of their mother on her affidavit.

The court reviewed the law on excluding co-parties from examinations to prevent the tailoring of evidence or intimidation.

The court ordered that the moving plaintiff be excluded from the mother's cross-examination, directing that only counsel, an interpreter, and the mother be present.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04(1) to seek payment of expert fees, amend its statement of claim, and obtain certificates of pending litigation (CPL) after the action was set down for trial.

The Master granted leave due to the defendants' ongoing failure to comply with production orders, which constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

The defendants were ordered to pay $10,000 in wasted expert fees caused by their piecemeal production.

While leave to amend the statement of claim was granted, the request for CPLs was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable claim to an interest in land, as the underlying agreement did not establish a fiduciary relationship or joint venture.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to vary a consent judgment and amend a statement of claim, the court determined costs payable to the successful defendants.

One defendant sought costs payable forthwith, while the plaintiff argued any award should be set off against an outstanding amount owed under a prior consent judgment.

The court held that the costs award and the debt under the consent judgment were liquidated mutual obligations, requiring legal set‑off.

Costs payable to that defendant were therefore credited against the amount owed under the consent judgment, while costs payable to the other defendant were ordered payable forthwith.

The court also assessed the reasonable quantum of costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Competing summary judgment motions arose from disputes over several properties allegedly subject to trust arrangements and financial contributions.

The moving party sought summary judgment transferring two Ontario properties based on trust agreements, while the opposing parties sought to strike the action in favour of a separate application.

The court held that material factual conflicts regarding alleged breaches of trust payment obligations and the interpretation of the trust agreements required a trial.

Claims relating to two other Ontario properties were dismissed as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and barred by res judicata following dismissal of an earlier action.

Claims regarding a foreign property were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because the property had never been transferred to the defendants.

Competing summary judgment motions arose from disputes over several properties allegedly subject to trust arrangements and financial contributions.

The moving party sought summary judgment transferring two Ontario properties based on trust agreements, while the opposing parties sought to strike the action in favour of a separate application.

The court held that material factual conflicts regarding alleged breaches of trust payment obligations and the interpretation of the trust agreements required a trial.

Claims relating to two other Ontario properties were dismissed as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and barred by res judicata following dismissal of an earlier action.

Claims regarding a foreign property were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because the property had never been transferred to the defendants.