Civil Litigation: Adding Parties
C & C Nestco Corporation v. Starr, et al., 2025 ONCA 792 (42184)
In September 2024, the Applicant, C & C Nestco Corporation, sued one of its lawyers for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duties. In November 2024, C & C brought a motion to amend its statement of claim; it sought to add three defendants — two lawyers and a law firm (“SVL defendants”) — as parties to the action. The underlying dispute related to the registration and enforcement of a private mortgage concerning a particular property. C & C acted as the lender, and the borrower defaulted on the mortgage. In 2013, C & C obtained judgment in an action against the borrower. In 2018, the SVL defendants defended C & C in the context of an action initiated by the borrower. In February 2020, a writ of seizure and sale C & C had previously obtained with respect to the property expired. In February 2022, the borrower sold the property. C & C’s proposed amended statement of claim alleged the SVL defendants’ negligence resulted in the writ of seizure and sale expiring and in the property being sold by the borrower. The SVL defendants argued C & C’s claims against them are statute-barred and the statement of claim cannot be amended to add them as parties. The motion judge dismissed C & C’s motion to add the SVL defendants as parties. The Ont. C.A. dismissed C & C’s appeal. “Pursuant to Rule 18(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is ordered that Robert Wilfred Walter Dowhan, Francis Mario Valeriote and Smith Valeriote Law Firm LLP be added to the style of cause as respondents to the application for leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents Robert Wilfred Walter Dowhan, Francis Mario Valeriote and Smith Valeriote Law Firm LLP.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
R. v. S., 2025 NSCA 78 (42167)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Paternity; Registration of Births
C.N. v. J.D., 2025 QCCA 1129 (42087)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a publication ban on the party. The court file contains information not available for inspection by the public, in the context of paternity & registration of birth issues. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, J.D.”
Real Property: Cottages; Co-Op Approval
Byrd v. Douglas K. Murdoch Revocable Trust, et al., 2025 ONCA 825 (42195)
The Applicant entered into an agreement to sell a seasonal cottage property to the individual Respondent, Mr. Murdoch. Mr. Murdoch and his son, Scott Murdoch, were U.S. citizens and residents. The sale was contingent on Co-Op approval and compliance with the Prohibition of the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act. After receiving the purchase price, the Applicant declared the agreement “dead” when the Co-Op delayed approval. The Applicant relisted the property for a higher price, and refused to surrender possession. The Applicant commenced an action for damages and a declaration the real estate deal was terminated and the Applicant was entitled to ownership of the property. Kalajdzic J. dismissed the Applicant’s action based on res judicata, abuse of process, and unpaid costs orders from previous related proceedings. Monahan J.A. ordered the Applicant to post security for costs of the appeal. The Applicant brought a motion for an order granting him leave to order and file the transcript of the motion before Monahan J.A. for use in the panel review motion. The motion was dismissed by Lauwers J.A. The Applicant brought two motions for a panel review of the orders of Monahan J.A. and Lauwers J.A. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the motions. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Tax: GST
Porisky, et al. v. R., 2025 FCA 197 (42178)
The Applicants promoted the idea people could avoid obligations to pay income tax and to collect and remit amounts for GST based on their interpretation of taxation legislation. Under the name “Paradigm Education Group”, the Applicants hosted seminars for which they charged admission, and sold books, training manuals, videos, and other material. During the five-year period in question, the Applicants generated more than $1.4M in gross revenue, but reported no income, paid no income tax, and neither collected nor remitted GST amounts. The Minister of National Revenue considered the Applicants to be equal partners in a “partnership” and considered their entity to be a “business” and thus a “source of income”; the Minister assessed the Applicants for unpaid income taxes, for uncollected and unremitted GST amounts, and for failing to file tax returns, and issued penalties. The Applicants were convicted of various criminal tax offences, and appealed the Minister’s assessments. The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the Applicants’ appeals. The Fed. C.A. unanimously dismissed the Applicants’ further appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”