Tracey J. Nieckarz

The plaintiffs sought significant damages from Hydro One for power disconnection, alleging breaches of the Criminal Code and Electricity Act.

Both parties brought motions to strike pleadings.

The plaintiffs' motion to strike Hydro One's defence was dismissed as the defence complied with pleading rules.

Hydro One's motion to strike the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim and Reply was granted because the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, primarily relying on statutory breaches which are not standalone civil causes of action.

The court granted leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended Statement of Claim.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued that its failure to defend the action was solely due to the negligence of its former lawyer, who failed to act despite instructions.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the default, had a plausible explanation for the default, and raised an arguable defence on the merits regarding cause for termination and damages.

The court granted the motion to set aside the default judgment but ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's substantial indemnity costs incurred due to the default.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order requiring surplus sale proceeds from the Defendant's property to be paid into court, or alternatively, for an interlocutory injunction.

The dispute stemmed from a verbal agreement between the Defendant (father) and Plaintiff Tang (daughter) for the purchase of a property, which the Defendant denied.

The court found that the Plaintiffs had asserted a legal right to the specific fund through proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, demonstrating a strong prima facie case.

The court also determined there was a real and significant risk that the Defendant would dissipate the fund, potentially defeating the Plaintiffs' claims.

The motion was granted, ordering the surplus proceeds to be paid into court.

This motion arose from the Respondent's dispute to the Applicant's garnishment of his bank accounts and income.

The garnishment was for a $16,100 payment conditional on the Respondent receiving specific income tax refunds, which had not yet occurred.

The Respondent sought the return of garnished funds, payment for credit charges, a formal apology, and costs.

The court found the garnishment premature, ordered the return of all garnished monies to the Respondent, and awarded the Respondent $5,000 in costs against the Applicant.

Requests for an apology and credit charges were dismissed due to lack of authority or evidentiary support.

The court also declined to award costs personally against the Applicant's counsel, applying the "extreme caution" principle.