Yadvinder S. Toor

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs in an action alleging bad faith and negligence by the insurers.

The court found that the defendants met their initial burden under Rule 56.01(1)(d) as the plaintiffs were corporations with insufficient assets in Ontario.

The burden shifted to the plaintiffs, who failed to prove impecuniosity due to incomplete financial disclosure and undisclosed real estate purchases.

The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits of their bad faith claim.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in installments totaling $65,000.

The applicants successfully brought a motion finding the respondents in civil contempt for failing to return nine vehicles as ordered by the court.

In this decision, the court determined the costs of the contempt motion and the appropriate sanction.

The court awarded the applicants costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $42,633.25, noting the respondents' deliberate but not entirely egregious conduct.

For the contempt sanction, applying the Boily factors, the court imposed fines of $10,000 on the corporate respondent and $2,500 on the individual respondent, payable to the Provincial Treasurer, to reflect deterrence and denunciation while acknowledging the contempt had since been purged.

The applicants brought a motion to find the respondents HK United Trucks Limited and Karnail Singh Mand in civil contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring them to return 9 commercial trucks.

The respondents argued they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and needed the trucks to complete contracts.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the respondents knew or ought to have known the trucks belonged to the applicant corporation.

The court found the respondents in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered them to park and secure the trucks pending a sanction hearing.

The plaintiff vendor sued its real estate broker and agent for overpaid commissions on the sale of a commercial property.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing they were entitled to the full commission under the listing agreement.

The court found that the agent had orally agreed to reduce the commission for a second, higher-priced offer, but later reneged.

The court also noted the agent breached his fiduciary duty by advising the plaintiff to accept an offer that yielded a higher commission for the agent but a lower net return for the plaintiff.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the overpaid commission of $77,970.

The moving party sought partial summary judgment for $345,816 allegedly owed under an agreement concerning the sale of six townhouses.

The responding parties disputed the validity of the agreement, including whether the relevant version was signed and whether the parties had reached a meeting of the minds.

The court held that credibility issues and ambiguity in the competing agreements created genuine issues requiring a trial, making summary judgment inappropriate under the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

However, based on the responding parties’ own evidence acknowledging net sale proceeds of $345,816 and a signed letter of direction to counsel, the court ordered that amount paid into court pending trial.

Directions were also made for discovery and case management steps.