Adam Jarvis

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an appeal from an interim decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court ordered that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via video conference.

Detailed directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, compendiums, and costs materials using a password-protected drop box.

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.

The respondent storage facility claimed approximately $25,000 in storage fees for a vehicle deemed a total loss by the applicant insurer.

The respondent commenced an application in Small Claims Court under s. 23 of the Repair and Storage Liens Act to determine the lien amount.

The applicant subsequently commenced an application in the Superior Court under s. 24 of the Act, paying the disputed amount into court to secure the vehicle's release.

The respondent moved to terminate the Superior Court proceeding, arguing its prior Small Claims Court application deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate, finding that s. 23(2) does not create a temporal limitation based on which application was filed first.

However, because the disputed amount was under $25,000, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the Superior Court application to the Small Claims Court to be consolidated with the respondent's application.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order declaring that the parties had not settled the underlying action for non-payment of furnace equipment.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds regarding the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding an evidentiary basis for the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the parties had not agreed on a material term regarding the timing of payment and receipt of documents.

The court also found the Deputy Judge's brief reasons were adequate for the Small Claims Court context.

Appeal from a summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action for domain name disputes and an order dismissing the appellant's motion to strike paragraphs of the respondent's statement of defence.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn the summary judgment motion, no error in dismissing the motion to strike, and no basis to interfere with the costs award.

The court found that the appellant had registered domain names confusingly similar to the respondent's marks in bad faith and had engaged in unethical and deceptive conduct.

The court addressed three motions: the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, the plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the statement of defence and counterclaim, and the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The court denied the plaintiff's request for an adjournment, finding a breach of diligence.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims, including those for defamation, domain name ownership, theft of trade secrets, corporate espionage, passing off, copyright, and trademark infringement.

The court found the plaintiff acted in bad faith regarding domain name registrations and meta-tag use.

The plaintiff's motions were dismissed.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order consolidating her Superior Court action with the respondent's Small Claims Court action (which had been transferred to the Superior Court) and awarding costs.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge correctly ordered consolidation because the two franchise dispute actions dealt in substance with the same set of issues.

As leave to appeal the costs award had not been granted, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of four Small Claims Court actions regarding towing and storage liens under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The deputy judge had dismissed the actions mid-trial on a nonsuit motion, finding the wrong parties were named.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the deputy judge made palpable and overriding errors regarding the proper parties and erred in law by granting a nonsuit motion before the plaintiffs had completed their case and without putting the defendants to an election.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant franchisor commenced an application in Toronto seeking injunctive relief against the respondent franchisees for alleged breaches of a restrictive covenant in Mississauga.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 13.1.02 to transfer the application to Brampton.

The court weighed the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) and found that the events, damages, subject matter, and convenience of parties and witnesses all favoured Brampton.

The motion to transfer venue was granted, subject to the approval of the Regional Senior Justices.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment in favour of the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) on a loan and guarantee.

The motion judge found that the corporate appellant was in default to RBC, which triggered a default on the BDC loan pursuant to a subordination agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial and concluding that the motion judge did not err in admitting an affidavit attaching RBC's business records or in dismissing the appellants' cross-motion to stay the summary judgment motion.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to discharge the plaintiff’s construction lien and certificate of action and to dismiss the action.

The court held that the lien against the property owner was invalid because the plaintiff failed to provide the written notice required under s. 19(1) of the Act.

The court further found, on the evidentiary record, that the amount already paid exceeded the value of the work actually performed under the contracts.

Applying the summary judgment principles in the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded a trial was unnecessary.

The lien and certificate of action were discharged and the action dismissed as against the relevant defendants.