Adam Jarvis

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte temporary Mareva injunction against the defendants following the failure of their trucking joint venture.

The plaintiffs sought to continue the injunction and register a certificate of pending litigation, while the defendants moved to set it aside.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, specifically omitting their own participation in transferring and dissipating corporate assets after insolvency.

As a result, the court set aside the temporary Mareva injunction nunc pro tunc and dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for interim equitable relief, finding they did not come to court with clean hands.

The defendant property owner moved under the Construction Act to vacate and discharge a construction lien and certificate of action registered by a subcontractor against the subject property.

The subcontractor had performed window installation work on a condominium project and claimed its last supply date was March 14, 2025, when a worker attended the property to replace a glass pane broken during insulation removal by another party.

The court found that the subcontractor's substantive work had been completed before February 2025, that the March 2025 attendance was minor remedial repair work that did not constitute a lienable supply extending the preservation period, and that the lien was therefore registered outside the mandatory 60-day window.

The motion was granted and the lien and certificate of action were discharged and vacated, with costs of $4,000 awarded to the moving party.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision in which the deputy judge awarded the respondent contractor $18,813.37 for flooring installation work.

The appellant had refused to pay the balance of the invoice, alleging defective work, and hired another contractor to remedy the problems.

The Divisional Court found that the deputy judge erred in law by deciding the case primarily on the basis of unjust enrichment, a legal doctrine that had not been pleaded or argued by the parties.

The court held that unjust enrichment was irrelevant to the central contractual issue of whether the contractor had fulfilled its obligations regarding the quality of the work performed.

The appeal was allowed, the decision was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion in a commercial lease dispute, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The case involved allegations of breach of lease, wrongful termination, and repudiation, with significant evidentiary and credibility concerns due to the passing of a key witness.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient for summary judgment and awarded costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff catering company sued its former executive chef and a daycare customer after the chef resigned to work directly for the daycare, moving its meal program onsite.

The plaintiff alleged the chef misappropriated confidential information, including menus and pricing, and breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff also alleged the defendants intentionally destroyed electronic evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety.

The court found the menus and processes were not confidential, the restrictive covenants were overly broad and unenforceable, the employee was not a fiduciary, and the defendants did not engage in spoliation of evidence.

The court also gave no weight to the plaintiff's electronic evidence due to a lack of forensic preservation.

The defendant Jaclyn Szabo brought a motion to remove DH Professional Corporation as counsel for Ziya Hot Yoga Inc. and Jacqueline DiRenzo, alleging a conflict of interest.

DH had previously acted for Ziya and its principals, including Szabo and DiRenzo, in corporate structuring and shareholder agreements.

The court found that DH had acted as counsel for Szabo, or at least as a "near client," and owed her a duty of loyalty.

Given the close relationship between the corporate work and the current litigation, and the absence of ethical walls or independent legal advice for Szabo, the court concluded that DH was in a conflict of interest.

The motion to remove counsel was granted, and costs were awarded to Szabo.

The plaintiff, PCNIX Inc., brought a motion seeking a declaration that a default judgment obtained against the defendants, TECPARTNER Inc. and Edwin Masango, survived Masango's bankruptcy under sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original statement of claim and the trial judge's findings did not contain sufficient factual allegations of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation, false pretenses, or fraudulent misrepresentation to bring the debt within the purview of the specified BIA sections.

The court emphasized that for a debt to survive bankruptcy, the underlying pleadings must contain specific factual particulars, even if fraud is not explicitly pleaded as a cause of action.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a $200,000 real estate investment.

The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment regarding the calculation of profits and holdbacks from the sale of two properties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the enforceability of the settlement releases, alleged misrepresentations of costs, and whether the claims were statute-barred.

This decision is a costs endorsement following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs from the defendants Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc., who opposed the CPL motion.

The court found the plaintiffs presumptively entitled to costs as the successful parties on a distinct procedural step.

Applying Rule 49.10, the court determined that the defendants' failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle, which included a compromise regarding the CPL's duration, warranted substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants' uncooperative conduct during litigation also contributed to the decision.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in substantial indemnity costs, to be paid jointly and severally by the opposing defendants.

This decision addresses two motions: a motion by defendant Gaspare Caruso for summary judgment to dismiss the action against him, and a contempt motion brought by other defendants against Robert Bortolon.

The plaintiff, 1947755 Ontario Ltd., claimed Caruso wrongfully withdrew $86,000 from its corporate account.

Caruso argued he was the sole director and shareholder at the time.

The court found that Caruso was the first director of 1947755 Ontario Ltd. and remained a director in February 2017, as the purported shareholder meetings to remove him were null and void due to lack of notice and quorum.

However, the court also found that Caruso was never a shareholder of 1947755 Ontario Ltd. The motion for summary judgment was not granted, but adjourned to a mini-trial to determine who the shareholders were, whether Caruso embezzled funds, and if any breach of duty was ratified.

The contempt motion against Robert Bortolon was dismissed as the evidence did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was instrumental in commencing the action in breach of a vexatious litigant order, and the motion to expunge the initial statement of claim was also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to find the non-party Robert Bortolon in contempt of court, or alternatively, to expunge the initial statement of claim.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The alternative motion to expunge the statement of claim, which was opposed by the plaintiff, 1947755 Ontario Ltd., was also dismissed.

The court's decision was based on a combined evidentiary record from this motion and a related summary judgment motion, both addressing the issue of who was in control of the plaintiff corporation as of February 2017.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property, alleging an unconscionable mortgage transaction and fraud.

The defendants Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc. opposed, claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice.

The court applied the two-part test for CPLs, finding a triable claim to an interest in land and that the balance of factors favored granting the CPL, particularly due to the defendants' lack of credible evidence and questionable conduct regarding the property's transfer and value.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his fraud action as statute-barred.

He alleged the respondents fraudulently stripped him of his shares in a company in January 2017, but did not commence his action until April 2020.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the claim was discoverable by February 2017, noting the appellant's former counsel had asserted belief of fraud at that time.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's discretionary refusal to grant an adjournment and dismissed the appellant's application to adduce fresh evidence.

Plaintiff Can Duc Diep sought summary judgment against defendant Huong Thi Duong, alleging a fraudulent conveyance of equity from her ex-spouse, co-defendant Hien Cong Pham.

Diep had already obtained judgment against Pham and now sought judgment against Duong for $296,675.

Counsel for Duong raised preliminary objections, arguing the motion was an abuse of process and that a trial would be more efficient.

The court dismissed these preliminary objections, finding no abuse of process and that the motion for full summary judgment was appropriate, ordering the matter to proceed to argument.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of $26,814.39 against the plaintiff and his lawyer on a joint and several basis.

The court awarded the requested amount against the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis due to the claim being without merit and pursued for delay.

However, the court declined to order costs personally against the plaintiff's lawyer, finding no bad faith or deliberate malicious behaviour.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, which alleged fraud regarding corporate shares and sought damages.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the material facts upon which the claim was based were discovered by February 2017, more than two years before the action was commenced in April 2020.

The court applied the discoverability principle and the summary judgment framework, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

This case concerns a dispute over a $50,000 deposit in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The purchasers refused to close due to the vendor's inability to deliver free and clear title, specifically the discharge of a private mortgage on or before the closing date.

The vendor counterclaimed for damages, arguing the purchasers were unreasonable.

The court found the vendor's failure to discharge the private mortgage constituted a fundamental breach of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, entitling the purchasers to the return of their deposit.

The vendor's counterclaim was dismissed.

Ismet Bajcinca, a non-party, brought a cross-motion under Rule 37.14(1) to set aside two cost orders made against him, claiming he did not receive notice of the original motions.

The court found that Bajcinca was properly served with notice of both motions and deliberately chose not to appear, making his claim of insufficient notice implausible.

Consequently, the court dismissed his cross-motion and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants due to Bajcinca's reprehensible conduct, including evading service and abusing the process.

The applicant, Shrawan Motwane, sought partial summary judgment to dismiss a counterclaim against him personally and for the return of personal belongings seized by the defendants.

The court granted the return of some personal items, finding they were not subject to the chattel mortgage, but dismissed the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, citing genuine issues requiring a trial and the risk of duplicative findings.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a unit owner, alleging breaches of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules arising from an alleged assault during a board election.

The respondent unit owner raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute concerned the corporation's rules and required mediation or arbitration under s. 134(2) of the Act.

The court found the application was essentially a dispute over the board election and not about conduct likely to cause injury under the Act.

The court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory mediation and arbitration preconditions.