Timothy M. Duggan

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a supplementary notice of appeal and for case management directions.

The moving party had improperly combined appeals of three vexatious litigant declarations and a dismissed application into a single notice of appeal without obtaining the required leave for the application appeal.

The Court of Appeal struck the application appeal without prejudice for failing to obtain leave under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

However, recognizing the moving party's clear intention to appeal the vexatious litigant declarations, the Court granted an extension of time to file separate notices of appeal for those orders.

The request for case management was dismissed.

A condominium unit owner brought an application challenging the termination of her parking space lease, the registration of two condominium liens, and administrative fines imposed by the condominium corporation.

The court found that the condominium corporation improperly terminated the parking lease before the expiry of the notice period and wrongfully registered liens that included amounts not properly lienable under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court further held that bylaw provisions allowing the board to impose arbitrary administrative fees were ultra vires and that the board’s refusal to engage in required mediation and arbitration, along with its conduct toward the owner, constituted oppressive conduct.

However, the applicant failed to prove that most of her alleged damages were causally connected to the misconduct.

The court ordered repayment of amounts paid under the invalid liens and awarded nominal damages for oppression.

In a civil action arising from the plaintiffs’ eviction following an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board and subsequent proceedings in the Divisional Court, the court considered whether the claim against one defendant lawyer should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs alleged the lawyer obtained a Divisional Court order lifting a stay of eviction despite alleged improper service of the motion record.

The court noted that challenges to service in the Divisional Court could have been addressed through remedies available in that court and that suing opposing counsel following successful prior litigation is a common indicator of vexatious proceedings.

The court directed that the plaintiffs be given notice that dismissal of the action against the lawyer was being considered and stayed the action against him pending written submissions.

The appellant, a unit owner and former director of the respondent condominium corporation, appealed a costs order made against him.

The application judge had ordered the appellant to pay $45,000 in costs but failed to clearly determine whether the appellant had acted in bad faith or was merely negligent, which was critical to determining his entitlement to indemnification under the condominium's by-laws.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the costs order, and remitted the matter to the application judge to clarify the findings and reassess the costs.

The appellant condominium corporation terminated its management agreement with the respondent for cause.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract, but the trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondent's conduct cumulatively amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

The Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, holding the reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the trial judgment, finding the Divisional Court erred by failing to read the reasons in the context of the trial record and the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his complaint that the landlord illegally entered his rental unit and invaded his privacy by taking photographs.

The Divisional Court found no error of law, noting the entry was authorized under section 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act for inspection purposes.

The court held that taking photographs during a lawful entry does not inherently infringe privacy rights if done for a proper purpose, such as preparing for an upcoming Board hearing.

The self-represented moving party brought a second motion within six months seeking to lift a stay of proceedings previously imposed pending completion of a related small claims action and payment of outstanding costs.

The court held that the prior costs orders, including those from the small claims action and earlier motions, were a threshold condition to any further consideration of lifting the stay.

The motion was characterized as an impermissible serial attempt to re-litigate issues already decided rather than a timely appeal or proper motion to set aside the earlier orders.

The motion was dismissed, the moving party's request for his own costs was rejected, and aggregate costs of $2,300 were awarded to the responding parties.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for default judgment and injunctive relief enforcing a restrictive covenant preventing a former employee from working for a competing medical spa or weight loss centre within a specified geographic radius for two years.

The court held that the non‑competition clause was unreasonable due to its excessive temporal restriction and ambiguity in its geographic scope.

The plaintiff also failed to establish irreparable harm and provided only speculative evidence of client or employee solicitation.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendant because enforcing the covenant would effectively prevent the defendant from working in her field.

The motion for injunctive relief was denied.