Todd Robinson

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence due to his failure to pay a $100,000 costs award from a previous unsuccessful motion and his ongoing non-compliance with court orders, including a Mareva injunction.

The defendant argued impecuniosity and invoked protections against self-incrimination to justify his refusal to answer questions about his finances.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding he failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure and improperly used self-incrimination protections to avoid answering proper questions.

The court granted the motion and struck the statement of defence with prejudice.

The plaintiff brought a motion to correct a misnomer in the title of proceedings and to direct the Land Registrar to certify a certificate of action registered on title.

The court dispensed with service on the landlord due to unsuccessful attempts and the lack of prejudice.

The court granted the motion, holding that it had the authority to amend the certificate of action nunc pro tunc and to direct the Land Registrar to certify the correct registration.

The plaintiff and defendants brought cross-motions regarding the sufficiency of answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery in a construction lien action.

The court ordered the defendants to provide further and better answers to several undertakings, finding their previous responses incomplete or non-responsive.

The court declined to order the production of the defendants' general ledgers and bank statements at this stage.

The defendants' motion to compel further answers from the plaintiff was dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff had either answered the undertakings or the defendants' follow-up questions exceeded the scope of the original undertakings.

The defendants moved to stay the plaintiff's action under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the dispute over a promissory note was subject to an arbitration clause in a related Master Cannabis Agreement.

The plaintiff argued the promissory note was a standalone agreement not subject to arbitration.

The court found the agreements were inextricably intertwined and the dispute fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause.

Finding no exceptions under s. 7(2) applied, the court granted the motion and stayed the action.

The defendant moved to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, vacate registrations, and dismiss the action, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff claimed it was the general contractor via an unwritten equitable assignment from the original contractor.

The court found no triable issue regarding the validity of the assignment, meaning the plaintiff was a subcontractor whose lien rights had expired.

The court discharged the lien and dismissed the breach of contract and breach of trust claims, but allowed the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims to proceed.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

In an ongoing construction lien reference, both the plaintiff and the defendant sought costs for prior motions.

The plaintiff had taken over the litigation from the original plaintiff after the original plaintiff went bankrupt.

The court found that the defendant unreasonably delayed consenting to the plaintiff's lift-stay motions, entitling the plaintiff to costs.

However, the court also found that the current plaintiff was the 'real litigant' behind the bankrupt original plaintiff during the defendant's earlier successful stay motion, meeting the 'person of straw' test.

Consequently, the current plaintiff was held liable for the defendant's costs of that motion.

After setting off the amounts, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant net partial indemnity costs of $31,500.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence for failing to comply with previous court orders, and sought judgment for breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The Associate Judge struck the defence and noted the defendants in default.

Although the Associate Judge found he lacked jurisdiction to grant default judgment for an unliquidated breach of trust claim, he determined it was appropriate to grant summary judgment.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the corporate defendant's breach of trust and the principal's personal liability.

The request for a declaration under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion to set aside two certificates of judgment and declare the assignment of the judgment from the original plaintiff to its successor invalid.

The court found that an order to continue was not required post-judgment and that the defendant's challenge to the assignment was a collateral attack on prior decisions of the Superior Court and Court of Appeal.

The court also held that the issuance of certificates of judgment is a purely administrative function, and there was no basis to set them aside.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a successful confidentiality motion by the defendant, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

Both parties improperly filed additional unauthorized materials, for which the court denied leave.

The defendant sought $54,000 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $3,000 based on a prior Federal Court decision.

The court rejected both extremes, finding the defendant's materials excessive but acknowledging the complexity and importance of the motion.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $28,570.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions to compel answers to refused questions from cross-examinations on affidavits for a pending application.

The underlying application sought an interim preservation order over a mining royalty.

The applicant sought production of unredacted communications, a valuation report, and a purchase agreement between the respondent and the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The respondent sought answers regarding the deceased's will and the applicant's relationship with a third party.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the requested documents and answers were not relevant to the narrow issues to be decided on an interim preservation application.

The defendants, Mohammad Kazem Abazari and Master Venus Inc., moved for an order to pay out mortgage proceeds held in trust and for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs cross-moved for the funds to be paid to them or preserved.

The court found that the prior interim preservation order had expired and the plaintiffs failed to establish the criteria for a new preservation order under Rule 45.02, particularly a serious issue to be tried regarding their claim to the specific fund.

The court dismissed the defendants' request for security for costs but stayed the plaintiffs' action pending full payment of an outstanding costs award from a prior unsuccessful motion.

The defendant's successor sought to continue the proceeding with itself as defendant, declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired, pay out security, and dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff cross-moved to restore the action to the trial list.

The court found the lien expired due to untimely preservation and ordered the security returned to the defendant.

However, the court refused to dismiss the action for delay, finding the defendant's complaint unreasonable given its own default.

The action was restored to the trial list as an ordinary contract claim, and the prior noting in default of the original defendant was set aside, allowing the successor to defend.

The defendants, Walsh Construction Company Canada and WCC Construction Canada, ULC o/a Walsh Canada, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Gowing Contractors Ltd., under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing Gowing lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

Gowing opposed, asserting that significant unpaid holdback funds from completed subcontract work constituted sufficient assets.

The court dismissed Walsh's motion, finding that Walsh failed to meet the threshold onus of demonstrating Gowing's lack of assets.

The Associate Justice held that the holdback funds, even subject to Walsh's set-off claims, were properly considered an asset of Gowing, especially since Walsh had not sufficiently particularized or quantified their alleged set-offs beyond a certain amount, leaving an excess holdback amount that exceeded the requested security for costs.

The defendants moved to set aside a noting in default, which the plaintiff did not substantively oppose but contested on costs.

The court granted the motion, finding the defendants' delay in defending was adequately explained and they had arguable defences.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' partial indemnity costs of the motion, deeming the plaintiff's refusal to consent to setting aside default without substantial indemnity costs for a prior ex parte substituted service motion unreasonable and an abuse of process.

The defendants brought an omnibus motion seeking to set aside an order restoring the action to the trial list, an order for trial together with a related action, production of documents, and leave for further examinations for discovery.

The court set aside the prior restoration order but granted a fresh order restoring the action.

It dismissed the request for trial together, ordered further production, and granted leave for additional examination for discovery regarding a second motor vehicle accident.

The court also allowed police productions from the 2014 action to be used in the 2020 action.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to provide further answers to undertakings and improperly refused questions during discovery in an $18 million damages claim.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide further answers regarding medication lists, symptoms communicated to counsel, expert reports from prior UK litigation, wheelchair funding applications, conservatory planning documents, and memoir drafts/notes.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct in delaying discovery compliance warranted substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of their successful motion to amend their statement of claim.

The Whyte Defendants and Andrew Paiva opposed the motion and sought their own costs, arguing divided success.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, found that while there was divided success, the plaintiffs were entitled to some costs as they succeeded on the most significant spoliation allegations.

The court dismissed the defendants' claims for costs and fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $2,340.85, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable in the cause.

The defendants in a construction lien action sought leave under section 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for partial summary judgment.

The proposed motion would determine whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to the cost-plus construction contract and whether the plaintiff overbilled by exceeding statutory estimates.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature pending discovery.

The court granted leave, finding that determining the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act would likely expedite the resolution of the issues in dispute, even if some factual issues ultimately require a trial.

The moving party sought leave to bring a motion to discharge a construction lien and dismiss or stay the action based on the plaintiff's delayed disclosure of an assignment agreement, arguing it constituted an abuse of process.

The court held that leave is not required to bring a motion under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act, as the merits of whether the ground is 'proper' should be determined on the motion itself.

However, the court found that seeking relief under Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act constitutes an 'interlocutory step' requiring leave under s. 67(2) of the CLA, even if the relief sought is final.

The court granted leave, concluding that the proposed motion would expedite the resolution of the issues in dispute in the lien action.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The court had previously declared the plaintiff's construction lien expired and dismissed the action insofar as it sought to enforce the lien.

The defendant argued the remaining breach of contract claim should also be dismissed for delay.

The court found that while the plaintiff had failed to advance the litigation and ignored its obligations, it would be unjust to dismiss the potentially meritorious claim without giving the self-represented plaintiff a final opportunity.

The court permitted the contract claim to proceed under a strict timetable and awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $14,130.22, with the action to be automatically stayed if costs were not paid.