Vitali Luchko

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e), seeking $116,380.50.

The court found the plaintiffs ordinarily reside in Alberta with no assets in Ontario, satisfying the threshold under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

However, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or that their claim had a good chance of success, as there was no expert evidence on breach of the standard of care, no corroboration for the minor plaintiff's version of events, and no evidence of compensable mental trauma.

The court ordered $50,000 in staged security for costs, significantly reducing the amount sought due to the defendants' procedural failings, and awarded $5,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The moving party plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time for service of a new expert appraisal report and for leave to amend their statement of claim to increase the damages claimed, arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The original appraisal experts had retired and were unable to testify, necessitating a replacement report.

The court found a reasonable explanation for the late service, no uncompensatable prejudice to the responding defendants, and no undue trial delay given the trial was set 11 months away.

Leave to serve the replacement appraisal was granted, as was the amendment to increase the quantum of damages claimed from $75,000 to $125,000, with costs thrown away to be quantified by the trial judge.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Manoravy Thillainathan, to amend his Notice of Application and file supplementary affidavits in a proceeding against the Hindu Temple Society of Canada (HTSC).

The HTSC opposed and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as moot.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the admissibility of new evidence.

The court finds that the challenge to the 2021 election is now moot, declines to allow amendments to add a monitor or challenge the 2023 election, and refuses to admit the new affidavits at this stage.

The application is discontinued as against the 26 named former directors and officers, and only the HTSC remains as respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's claim for child support as corollary relief under the Divorce Act, arguing she should instead seek to vary an existing Ontario Court of Justice consent order under the Family Law Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, holding that it has no discretion to decline jurisdiction over a properly brought Divorce Act application.

Applying the doctrine of paramountcy, the court confirmed that a corollary relief order under the federal Divorce Act supplants and supersedes a prior provincial child support order.

The moving party, the Estate Trustee, sought an order for possession of a condominium unit, which was the sole significant asset of the deceased's estate.

The responding party, the deceased's son and sole residual beneficiary, resided in the unit and opposed the motion, seeking a stay pending his application against the Estate Trustee for negligence and misfeasance.

The court declined to stay the motion, finding that the Estate Trustee was acting within his authority to sell the unit to pay estate debts and ongoing expenses.

The court granted the order for possession, adjourning the request for a writ of possession to allow the responding party time to find alternative accommodations.

Dr. Chandrasegaram, a long-standing board member of the Canadian Tamil Medical Association (CTMA), brought an application challenging the election of Dr. Ruban as Chairman.

He alleged irregularities including non-compliance with bylaws regarding automatic elevation to Chairman, late declaration of candidacy, and improper admission of new members.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while some irregularities existed, they did not go to the heart of the electoral process or alter the majority's wishes, especially given the organization's past practices and the significant vote margin.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

A commercial real estate deal involving three properties failed to close.

The plaintiff, NJS Capital Management Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rectification, or rescission based on unconscionability, arguing the deals were cross-conditional and a package.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the contracts and dismissing the counterclaims, concluding there was no oral agreement for cross-conditionality or misrepresentation, and the contracts were not unconscionable.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order that set aside a Mareva injunction.

The original injunction was granted ex parte without proper service of the originating process and without full disclosure of the defendants' anticipated position.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or serious doubt regarding the correctness of the lower court's decision on either improper service or failure of full and fair disclosure.

The court also upheld the costs award from the prior motion.

Following a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $146,651.44, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff's claim for fees and disbursements reasonable, noting the moderate complexity of the case and the defendant's lack of cooperation which necessitated additional steps.

Costs were fixed at the all-inclusive sum of $35,394.51.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant held title to a residential property as a bare trustee to enable mortgage financing while the plaintiff maintained beneficial ownership and paid all property expenses.

The defendant denied the existence of a trust and asserted she owned the property and the plaintiff was merely her tenant.

After disputes arose and the defendant initiated Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings, the property was sold under power of sale and repurchased by the plaintiff, resulting in alleged lost equity.

The court conducted a mini‑trial to resolve credibility issues and accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the defendant held title in trust and repudiated the trust arrangement.

The court also found that the defendant had received and failed to repay two loans advanced in 2008 and 2009.