Yan Wang

This decision addresses three motions: the defendants' motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, the defendants' motion to lift a Mareva injunction against two defendants, and the defendants' motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no direct adverse legal interests and that the "bright line rule" did not apply.

The motion to lift the Mareva injunction was also dismissed, as the court found evidence of co-mingled funds implicating the defendants.

However, the motion to discharge the CPL was granted, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an interest in the property, which was acquired prior to the investment relationship.

This urgent motion was scheduled to be heard but the parties reached a settlement, leading to an adjournment pending implementation.

The plaintiffs also informally requested an order sealing the court file due to personal information, but the court declined to grant it without a formal motion and factum, advising the parties to bring a proper motion if they wished to pursue it.

Hazleton Development Corporation, an insolvent company constructing a condominium complex, applied for an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The application sought a stay of proceedings, approval of Grant Thornton Limited as Monitor, permission for pre-filing payments to critical trades, approval of a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) financing facility, an administration charge, and a directors’ charge.

The court granted the initial order, finding the company met the CCAA's statutory requirements, the stay was appropriate for a 10-day period, the Monitor was qualified, pre-filing payments were beneficial to stakeholders, the DIP facility was essential and reasonably necessary, and both the administration and directors’ charges were warranted.

The order was granted without prejudice to the secured creditors' rights for a subsequent hearing.

The applicant brought an ex parte motion seeking to appoint her husband as her litigation guardian and for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation against a preconstruction condominium property.

The court granted the appointment of the litigation guardian as the applicant was incapable following a serious traffic accident.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

Although there was a triable issue regarding the termination of the agreement of purchase and sale, the court applied the Dhunna factors and found that the equities favoured the respondent, noting the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and there was another willing purchaser whose transaction was scheduled to close imminently.

The parties settled an application regarding property standards and snow falling from the respondent's roof, but could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $24,026, arguing he was practically successful.

The court found that because there was no Rule 49 offer to settle specifying costs, and the outcome on the merits remained unknown, no order as to costs was appropriate.

A previous $500 costs award for an adjournment remained payable.

The applicants sought to enforce a Chinese arbitral award of approximately $10 million CAD against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing she did not receive proper notice of the arbitration and that the arbitration was not 'international' under the Model Law.

The court found that the respondent was properly served in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules and that the arbitration was international because the respondent habitually resided in Canada when the arbitration agreement was made.

The application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the action and set aside service on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $16,895.58, which the plaintiff largely left unchallenged.

The court found the claimed fees and disbursements to be fair, reasonable, and proportional, and awarded the defendants their requested costs in full.

The self‑represented plaintiff in a legal malpractice action brought a motion under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to amend her amended statement of claim.

The proposed amended pleading was 236 pages long and contained extensive allegations including claims involving non‑parties, pleas of evidence rather than material facts, scandalous allegations, constitutionally flawed assertions, and claims that were statute‑barred or otherwise untenable.

The court held that leave to amend should be refused where proposed amendments are clearly impossible of success or constitute an abuse of process.

The court concluded that the proposed pleading was fundamentally flawed and non‑compliant with pleading rules requiring concise statements of material facts.

The motion for leave to amend was dismissed with prejudice in respect of the untenable allegations.