Vanessa A. Ibe

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of Shazia Khan due to her persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding discovery, document production, and accounting.

The motion also sought to schedule default judgment against Shazia Khan and summary judgment against Haroon Khan, and for production of documents from non-parties National Bank of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia.

The court denied an adjournment requested by the defendants based on an alleged settlement, prioritizing timely access to justice given the history of non-compliance.

The court granted the motion to strike Shazia Khan's statement of defence, finding her conduct a blatant disregard for court rules and orders, warranting this severe remedy.

The non-party production orders were also granted.

The scheduling of the judgment motions and a potential motion to enforce the alleged settlement was deferred to a case conference.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision rendered by the motion judge in favour of the respondent on claims for breach of contract and breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in finding no genuine issue requiring trial, contending that the case turned on credibility findings that required cross-examination or examination for discovery, which were unavailable under the simplified procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking payment for unpaid construction equipment rentals and a declaration of breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The court found both corporate defendants liable for breach of contract and breach of trust, concluding they acted in concert to avoid liability.

One individual director, Aaron Goodman, was found jointly and severally liable for breach of trust due to his knowledge and acquiescence.

The action against the other two individual directors was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of their involvement.

The corporate plaintiff sued for the return of a deposit on a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants counterclaimed and successfully moved before a Master for security for costs and leave to amend their counterclaim to add the plaintiff's principals as defendants.

The plaintiff and its principals appealed.

The Superior Court granted the appeal regarding security for costs, finding the Master erred by relying on speculation rather than evidence of the plaintiff's financial insufficiency.

The court dismissed the appeal regarding the amendment of pleadings, finding a tenable claim that the corporation acted as a bare trustee or agent for its principals.

A duplicative second action commenced by the defendants was dismissed.