Yadvinder Singh Toor

The decision concerns an appeal by the Defendants from an order granting the Plaintiffs certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) over two properties.

The court reviews the factual background, the standard of review, and the legal test for CPLs, ultimately finding no error in the Associate Justice’s decision to grant the CPLs.

The appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file further affidavits after having conducted cross-examinations, in connection with the defendants' motions for security for costs.

The court applied a flexible, contextual four-part test, finding the evidence relevant, responsive to matters raised on cross-examination, causing no non-compensable prejudice (as further cross-examination was permitted), and with a reasonable explanation for its late submission due to tight timelines.

Leave was granted, emphasizing the importance of allowing claims to be determined on their merits, especially where impecuniosity is alleged.

The plaintiffs, DK Manufacturing Group Ltd. and S.G. Investments Group Ltd., sought insurance proceeds and damages for bad faith from Co-operators General Insurance Company following a fire and water damage incident.

Co-operators brought a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the claims for insurance monies were resolved by a binding appraisal process and that a one-year contractual limitation period barred other claims.

The court found that Form AB, containing contractual statutory conditions including a one-year limitation period and appraisal process, applied to both policies.

The appraisal awards were binding, dismissing claims for further insurance monies.

However, the one-year contractual limitation period did not apply to the extra-contractual bad faith claims, which are governed by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Costs decision following an application involving condominium lien rights and priority issues between a condominium corporation, a contractor, and a secured lender.

The court assessed the applicant’s claim for costs against the contractor and found the requested amount disproportionate given the undefended and uncomplicated nature of the proceeding.

Costs were reduced and fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

Although the lender was successful on the priority issue, the court departed from the general rule that costs follow the event due to the novel and important legal issue raised.

Limited costs were nevertheless awarded to the lender for an adjournment attendance caused by late service.

A condominium corporation applied for declarations and compliance orders requiring a unit owner to pay longstanding common expense arrears and sought to characterize the arrears as damages under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 so they could be added to common expenses and enforced by a priority lien.

The owner did not dispute that arrears were owed, but a mortgagee intervened, arguing the corporation could not revive expired lien rights after failing to register liens within the three‑month period required by s. 85(2).

The court held that s. 134 cannot be used to circumvent the statutory lien regime or revive expired lien rights in a manner that would prejudice prior mortgagees who had received no notice.

While the owner was ordered to pay the arrears with interest, the court refused to declare the arrears as damages capable of being added to common expenses and enforced by a new priority lien.

The equities favored the mortgagee because the condominium corporation failed to preserve its statutory lien rights.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking injunctive relief to prevent the distribution of funds from the sale of townhouses that were the subject of an agreement between the parties.

In the alternative, the plaintiff sought an order under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the defendants to deposit $600,000 into court.

The court held that the evidence of irreparable harm was speculative and insufficient to satisfy the test for an injunction.

The court further found that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence showing a risk that the defendants would frustrate execution or render recovery impossible, which was necessary to satisfy the balance of convenience under Rule 45.02.

Both the request for injunctive relief and the request for a payment into court were dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion regarding the respondent's compliance with a prior court order to produce financial records of a condominium corporation.

The respondent's director provided some documents at the hearing and advised that audited statements were being prepared.

The court found that while the contempt order was not fully purged, the blatant disregard had dissipated and the respondent was on the road to compliance.

The motion was adjourned sine die to allow auditors to complete their work, and the respondent's director was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs for the appearance.

The applicants sought enforcement of a prior court order requiring production of condominium corporation financial records and pursued contempt proceedings against a corporate director for non‑compliance.

The director delivered additional banking and financial documents and advised that audited financial statements were being prepared by external auditors.

The court found that the respondent had not yet fully purged the contempt order because the disclosure provided did not include all required financial records.

However, the court accepted that steps toward compliance were underway and relieved the director from further personal attendance requirements.

The contempt motion was adjourned to allow completion of the audit and disclosure of supporting documentation, and costs were awarded to the applicants for the appearance.

In contempt proceedings arising from a failure to comply with a prior court order requiring production of financial and accounting records, the court addressed a request for an adjournment of a sentencing hearing for contempt.

The corporate director of the respondent had failed to appear at a previous hearing, resulting in the issuance of a bench warrant.

After appearing with newly retained counsel, the director sought additional time to assemble the required financial documentation and to address missing records.

Although the court expressed concern about repeated adjournments and minimal compliance with prior orders, it concluded that granting a short adjournment would better facilitate production of the required documents and potential purging of the contempt.

The bench warrant was rescinded, the matter adjourned on a peremptory basis, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicants.

The applicants brought a motion for civil contempt under Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against a corporate respondent for repeated non-compliance with prior court orders requiring production of materials and accounting under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Applying the three-part contempt test from Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership v. Torroni, the court found the orders were clear and unequivocal, the respondent’s failure to comply was deliberate and wilful, and contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the respondent’s request for an adjournment and held that the record demonstrated persistent disregard of court orders.

The respondent corporation was found in contempt, and the directing mind of the corporation was ordered to attend a further contempt hearing to determine enforcement if the contempt was not purged.

Costs were awarded to the applicants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought costs following earlier proceedings concerning the respondent declarant’s repeated failure to comply with obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998 and with prior court orders requiring disclosure of information to the condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to file responding submissions despite being granted time to do so.

The court reviewed the applicants’ bill of costs and found the requested amount reasonable under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also considered whether additional monetary relief was available under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Costs were awarded to the applicants along with an additional statutory amount due to the declarant’s failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with statutory disclosure obligations.

Unit owners and the condominium corporation brought an application seeking declarations confirming the validity of a turnover meeting and compelling the declarant to comply with statutory obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicants alleged the declarant failed to hold required owner meetings, transfer control of the board, maintain building operations, and deliver mandatory records and financial information.

The court found the declarant had not complied with statutory duties and had failed to provide evidence supporting claims that it held proxies capable of altering the turnover meeting outcome.

The court confirmed the validity of the September 7, 2011 turnover meeting, recognized the elected board, and ordered the declarant to deliver statutory documents, records, and funds and to provide a full accounting of monies collected for condominium operations.