Tudor Bogdan Carsten

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, seeking to freeze their assets based on an alleged debt owed under a Repayment Agreement.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants were planning to move to the United States and dissipate their Ontario assets to avoid judgment.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case for the debt, there was insufficient evidence to prove a real risk that the defendants were removing assets from the jurisdiction to avoid judgment.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was dismissed.

The moving defendant sought dismissal of a long-standing civil action for delay under Rule 24.01 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The court held that the delay, exceeding thirteen years from commencement, was inordinate and largely inexcusable, although it was not intentional and contumelious and the responding parties had rebutted the presumption that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The court nevertheless found that five years of unexplained post-2008 inactivity, coupled with non-response to defence inquiries and no realistic prospect of timely trial, amounted to an abuse of the civil justice system.

The claims against the moving defendant were dismissed under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The respondent sued the appellant for defamation arising from a brief sexual relationship.

The appellant counterclaimed for sexual battery and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The motion judge struck the claim in battery, and the appellant appealed.

The appellant, representing herself, repeatedly sought adjournments based on alleged emotional difficulties and medical appointments but failed to provide supporting evidence or appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for an adjournment and the appeal, noting the appeal had little chance of success.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid amounts on a home renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages due to construction deficiencies, failure to follow design, delay, and fraudulent misrepresentation by the contractor's principal.

The court found that the contract was a fixed-price agreement and disallowed many of the contractor's claims for extras.

The court awarded damages to the homeowners for the contractor's failure to follow the agreed-upon design, delay costs, and structural repairs.

Furthermore, the court pierced the corporate veil, finding the contractor's principal personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentations that induced the homeowners to enter into the contract.

Judgment was issued in favour of the homeowners for $42,832.

Costs were determined following motions concerning the validity of minutes of settlement and enforcement of judgment.

A defendant by counterclaim had unsuccessfully sought to set aside settlement minutes on the basis of alleged mental incapacity, while the bank successfully obtained judgment under those minutes.

The bank sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $64,000, arguing the motion lacked merit and required significant preparation including expert psychiatric evidence.

The court held that although the bank was successful, substantial indemnity costs were not warranted and awarded partial indemnity costs of $19,900 against the unsuccessful moving party.

A co-defendant who supported the bank’s position was denied any costs because his participation duplicated the bank’s submissions.

The plaintiff executive brought a wrongful dismissal action following termination without notice after approximately six years of employment.

The employer initially alleged cause but later conceded none existed.

The court applied the Bardal factors and determined that a reasonable notice period was 13 months but reduced it to 12 months due to limited mitigation efforts.

Damages were calculated using the plaintiff’s most recent accepted salary of $70,000 rather than a prior higher salary.

The court also awarded reimbursement for expenses and RRSP contributions, rejected a limitations defence regarding those expenses, and ordered the defendant to purchase gifted shares from the plaintiff at $160,000.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to exclude an expert engineering report and related remedial work evidence, the successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs of over $24,000.

The court considered whether the unsuccessful moving party’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs and applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the motion was unsuccessful, the court found the conduct did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the overarching principle of reasonableness and guidance from appellate jurisprudence, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at a fair and reasonable amount.

Costs of $12,500 inclusive were awarded, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion on the eve of trial seeking leave under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a motion to exclude an engineering report and related evidence relied on by the defendants in their counterclaim concerning alleged construction deficiencies.

The moving party argued the report had been delivered late and that remedial work was completed before it had an opportunity to obtain its own expert inspection.

The court held that leave was not warranted because the action had already been set down for trial and the moving party failed to demonstrate a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances making the motion necessary in the interests of justice.

The evidence showed the moving party had long been aware of the report and remedial work, had opportunities to conduct inspections and obtain its own expert evidence, and delayed bringing the motion until shortly before trial.

In any event, the court held the relief sought would not be justified because the evidence could be addressed through cross‑examination and exclusion would cause greater prejudice to the opposing party.

The respondent paid the appellant $112,056 in advance for hardwood flooring.

The appellant failed to deliver the product and instead applied the funds to a debt owed by a third party, claiming the third party was the respondent's agent.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no evidence of actual or ostensible authority to support the agency claim.

The appeal was dismissed.