P. Theodore Matlow

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondents to de-register shares held in his RRSP and transfer them in kind without withholding tax.

The respondents refused to process the withdrawal without first determining the fair market value of the privately held shares in order to calculate withholding tax under the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Regulations.

The court held that the regulatory provisions relied upon by the respondents concerning withholding tax on remuneration between employers and employees did not apply to withdrawals from a privately administered RRSP where no employment relationship existed.

As no prescribed rule requiring withholding tax in the circumstances was identified, the respondents had no legal basis to refuse the withdrawal or insist on a valuation letter.

The court ordered that the shares be de‑registered without deduction for withholding tax.

The plaintiff appealed an order of a Master dismissing a motion seeking to compel a hospital to produce a specific individual as its corporate representative for examination for discovery.

The proposed representative was no longer an officer, director, or employee of the corporate defendant but acted as an independent contractor.

The court held that Rule 31.03(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure limits corporate representatives on discovery to officers, directors, or employees, and the court lacks discretion to compel other individuals.

The judge found the rule’s language clear and rejected attempts to expand its scope through case law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Master’s order upheld.

Following a prior contempt-related order requiring the defendants to make a stipulated payment into court, the defendants failed to comply and provided no explanation or request for an extension.

The court considered the appropriate sanction for the ongoing non-compliance.

Concluding that the defendants’ conduct was an attempt to disrupt and undermine the proceedings, the court struck the defendants’ statement of defence and counterclaim without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs were permitted to note the defendants in default and move for judgment.

Costs were reserved to be determined together with any motion for judgment.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order that the presiding judge recuse himself and declare a mistrial in an ongoing civil trial.

The motion relied primarily on language used in an earlier endorsement granting a Mareva injunction that referred to a “fraudulent scheme.” The court held that the language was intended only to reflect the existence of strong prima facie evidence and did not constitute a final finding of fraud.

Applying the objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias, the court concluded that no informed person would believe the judge had conducted the trial unfairly or would fail to remain impartial.

The motion for recusal and mistrial was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking contempt findings against the defendants for failing to comply with multiple court orders issued during a prolonged civil trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had wilfully and repeatedly breached clear and unambiguous orders, including a prior order requiring compliance with all outstanding trial directions.

Evidence demonstrated a deliberate strategy to delay the proceedings and obstruct the plaintiffs’ ability to advance the action.

Rather than striking the defence immediately, the court ordered the defendants to pay $35,000 into court as security for costs associated with motions and wasted trial time.

The court emphasized the need to impose sanctions to protect the administration of justice and prevent ongoing delay tactics.

The plaintiffs sought continuation of a Mareva injunction against a defendant alleged to be holding assets on behalf of other defendants to shield them from potential judgment enforcement.

The court found a strong prima facie case that the defendant remained in possession and control of substantial assets belonging to related defendants and that those assets were being concealed to avoid seizure.

The court also found a high likelihood that the defendants would continue to dissipate or conceal assets without court intervention.

Credibility concerns were raised regarding the evidence of key defendants.

The Mareva injunction was continued until final disposition of the action.

The plaintiff sued her former spouse alleging that he fraudulently misappropriated life insurance proceeds payable to her following the death of their child in a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant had deposited both insurance cheques into the parties’ joint bank account and used the funds for joint expenses and investments while the plaintiff was hospitalized.

The court found the plaintiff to be an unreliable witness and accepted the defendant’s evidence that the funds were used with the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent.

The court further held that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and that a broad mutual release contained in the parties’ separation agreement extinguished any such claims.

The action and the defendant’s counterclaim were dismissed.

Costs decision arising from an interim motion within an estates-related family dispute involving the care and financial management of an elderly person under disability.

The moving party sought relief against a sibling for alleged misconduct in managing the parent’s affairs and failing to comply with prior court orders.

After numerous appearances and unsuccessful settlement attempts, the court had earlier imposed an interim regime and transferred the matter to the Estates List.

In determining costs, the court found the moving party had acted reasonably in seeking judicial intervention and attempting settlement, while the responding sibling repeatedly consented to settlements and later repudiated them, causing unnecessary expense.

The court awarded partial costs to the moving party against the responding sibling and apportioned costs for the Public Guardian and Trustee between the principal litigants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a binding final contract existed between the parties for the creation of visual artwork and that the defendant had repudiated that contract.

The court reviewed extensive conflicting evidence concerning negotiations, correspondence, and the parties’ expectations regarding execution of a formal written agreement contemplated by governing terms of reference.

Although the plaintiff had performed design work and received payment for preparatory efforts, the court found the evidentiary record raised substantial credibility issues and conflicting inferences about whether a final binding contract had been formed.

The court held that these disputes constituted genuine issues requiring a trial and could not safely be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The defendant moved to stay an Ontario action pending the outcome of a related proceeding commenced in Kentucky.

The plaintiff sought declaratory relief concerning its proprietary interest in an internet domain name within Ontario.

The court found the action had a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the plaintiff’s operations, witnesses, and relevant activities were located in Ontario and Ontario law would likely govern the dispute.

The court concluded that the defendant failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured the Kentucky proceeding.

The motion to stay the Ontario action was dismissed.

A self-represented defendant brought a motion seeking payment out of approximately $30,000 held in court representing surplus proceeds from the power of sale of her condominium.

Counsel for the plaintiff argued the motion was moot because a prior trial decision had dismissed the action and ordered the funds paid to the plaintiff.

The moving party denied receiving notice of the trial and questioned the basis for the plaintiff’s entitlement to the surplus proceeds.

The court noted concerns about a potential injustice but observed that the record did not contain sufficient materials to assess the underlying claim.

The judge reserved decision and prepared an endorsement to assist the moving party in seeking legal advice and potential legal aid.