William S. Chalmers

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the motions because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that it would be inefficient to proceed with the motions to strike before the motion to amend was decided.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one of the defendants.

A case management conference was held regarding two actions brought by a self-represented plaintiff, who also purported to act as litigation guardian for another plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to attend the conference but sent a letter indicating his intention to withdraw both actions.

Due to ongoing concerns regarding the plaintiff's capacity and the involvement of a party under disability, the court directed the defendants to bring motions to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian and to seek court approval for the settlement or withdrawal of the actions.

The plaintiff solar energy company brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant homeowners for breach of a 20-year Solar Development Lease Agreement.

The defendants had terminated the agreement and redirected revenue payments to themselves after the plaintiff refused to pay the registration costs for postponing its security interest to allow the defendants to refinance their property.

The court found that the plaintiff had no obligation to pay the postponement costs and that the defendants breached the agreement by diverting the revenue.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with a reference ordered to determine the quantum of damages.

The defendants, Darren Hendren and Delaxan Ithayaneesan, brought a motion to vary a Mareva injunction to access frozen proprietary assets for living expenses and legal fees, citing reduced income due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide frank disclosure of their assets, income, and expenses, and did not demonstrate that they had no other available assets.

The court also found that a balancing of interests favored the plaintiff, given the strong prima facie case of wrongdoing and the risk of asset dissipation.

This endorsement arises from a pre-trial conference where the defendants, Perrera and Yu, sought to bring a motion for disclosure of a settlement between the plaintiffs and co-defendants, arguing its relevance to the action against them.

The plaintiffs maintained the settlement was privileged.

The court scheduled the defendants' disclosure motion and addressed the possibility of a trial adjournment, stating the trial should proceed as scheduled but allowing for a renewed adjournment request if new information arises from the disclosure motion.

The issue of costs for the pre-trial conference was reserved to the trial judge.

Bari Stern Zittell, a judgment creditor of Vince Turano, brought a motion for a garnishment order against the Estate of Giulia Turano, from which Vince Turano was a beneficiary.

The Estate, through its trustee Angela Lucca, failed to comply with the notice of garnishment or file a garnishee's statement, arguing that Vince Turano owed Angela Lucca money.

The court denied the Estate's request for an adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, and granted Zittell's motion.

The court ordered the Estate to pay Zittell Vince Turano's share of the estate proceeds and fixed costs.

This endorsement addresses a procedural motion brought by the defendant, Li Ping Shao, seeking an order for the disbursement of funds from the net proceeds of a property sale, held in trust, to cover her living expenses and legal fees.

The plaintiffs, Shan Shan Xu and Jian Zhang, oppose this request.

The court, following a case conference, established a detailed timetable for the motion, including deadlines for motion records, responding records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the hearing scheduled for March 29, 2021.

The endorsement clarifies that the presiding judge is not seized of the matter.

The plaintiff requested a case conference to address the defendant's counsel's illness and the lack of a pre-trial conference waiver for a scheduled summary trial.

The court adjourned the summary trial, vacated the original dates, and rescheduled it for the week of May 25, 2021.

The court also directed counsel to schedule a pre-trial conference and exempted the action from mandatory mediation under Rule 75.1.04.

The Plaintiff, Venturistic Investments Inc., sought to bring a motion for summary judgment against the Defendant, Mason, for alleged theft of approximately $38,000 through altered and multiple-deposited cheques.

The Defendant failed to attend a Civil Practice Court hearing and a subsequent case conference.

The court found the matter appropriate for summary judgment, noting the evidence would primarily involve forensic accounting.

The court scheduled the summary judgment motion for April 6, 2021, set a detailed timetable for materials, and ordered that service of motion materials via the Defendant's email address would be effective.

The judge remained seized of the matter for timetable issues.

This endorsement addresses a procedural issue in a motor vehicle accident action where a settlement could not be finalized due to the plaintiff in a companion action failing to provide their position regarding policy limits.

The plaintiff in the current action sought directions from the court.

The court declined to make immediate orders affecting the absent party but adjourned the case conference and directed the defendant to ensure the companion action's plaintiff attends the next conference, reserving the right to make procedural orders under Rule 50.13(6).

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a wrongful dismissal action, where the parties agreed to proceed by way of a two-day summary trial.

The court established a detailed timetable for the exchange of affidavits of documents, completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, and delivery of witness affidavits and factums.

A pre-trial/settlement conference was also scheduled, and the presiding judge remained seized of the matter for the pre-trial and any issues arising from the timetable.

The plaintiff, an auto parts supplier, brought a motion for summary judgment against corporate defendants operating auto body repair facilities and an individual defendant for unpaid invoices.

The corporate defendants consented to judgment for the principal amount, leaving the issues of pre-judgment interest and costs for the court.

The court found that the credit application stipulated a 2% monthly interest rate on unpaid accounts and ordered pre-judgment interest at this rate from December 1, 2019.

The issue of costs was reserved, and the motion against the individual defendant was adjourned by consent.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties advised the court that the action had tentatively settled and requested an adjournment of the motion sine die.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, noting that if the settlement was not completed, the parties would need to obtain a new date and timetable at Civil Practice Court.

The judge was not seized of the matter, and no costs were awarded for the attendance.

This endorsement addresses a pre-trial conference where counsel for two defendants was unprepared due to not receiving the file from previous counsel.

The pre-trial, initially scheduled for September 25, 2020, and then rescheduled, was further adjourned to February 26, 2021.

The court directed the managing partner of the former firm, Baker McKenzie, to attend the rescheduled pre-trial if the file is not provided by February 24, 2021.

The endorsement also noted that trial adjournment terms and costs of the current pre-trial would be addressed at the next conference.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses a summary judgment motion brought by the defendants, seeking to dismiss the action based on a two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff's counsel, LawPro, sought to file supplementary responding material, including medical evidence regarding the plaintiff's mental capacity.

The court set a timetable for the plaintiff to deliver supplementary materials and for the defendants to state any objections.

A subsequent case conference was scheduled to address the admissibility of the new evidence and to establish the timetable for the remaining steps of the summary judgment motion.

The applicant, a disabled party by her litigation guardian, sought court approval for an Accident Benefit (AB) settlement and associated legal fees.

The court found the AB settlement of $744,116.26 to be appropriate and reasonable given the circumstances of the severe traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures sustained by the applicant.

However, the court adjourned the approval of the proposed legal fees for the AB claim, which were based on a 25% contingency fee.

The judge required the applicant's solicitor to provide actual time dockets to determine the fairness and reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement, noting that a previous tort settlement fee for the same client had been reduced due to insufficient docketed time.

The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of contingency fee agreements for parties under disability.

The moving parties, who were guarantors of a mortgage, sought summary judgment against the mortgagor corporation for indemnity after the mortgage fell into default.

The moving parties had not yet made any payments toward the mortgage debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the terms of the mortgage and the common law of subrogation, a guarantor's cause of action against the principal debtor does not crystallize until the guarantor actually makes a payment on the debt.

This endorsement addresses compliance with a previous court order regarding rent payments and premises vacation.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached the order by contacting subtenants and sought an injunction.

The respondent claimed the applicant owed additional rent and credited subtenant payments received.

The court reaffirmed the terms of the prior endorsement, requiring the applicant to pay rent as due (less subtenant payments received by the respondent) and stating that failure to pay would release the respondent from their undertaking not to remove the applicant.

The court declined to hear the injunction request due to the lack of a formal motion and factum, noting potential issues with establishing irreparable harm.

Costs were reserved.

The applicants brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement and a consent order requiring the respondents to pay $259,570.38.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to set aside the settlement and orders, arguing they were induced to settle by a material misrepresentation regarding whether one of the applicants was a lessee of the business premises.

The court found no misrepresentation occurred, and even if it had, it was not material to the settlement.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, found the respondents in breach of the settlement, and ordered them to pay the settlement funds plus interest and costs.

Following the dismissal of summary judgment motions, a case conference was held to address trial scheduling.

The parties requested an exemption from mandatory mediation, agreeing it would have no value given prior unsuccessful resolution efforts.

The court granted the exemption pursuant to Rule 24.1.05, finding it would not reduce cost or delay.

A 5 to 7-day trial was scheduled for September 20, 2021.