Alexander Evangelista

The defendants appealed an associate justice's decision dismissing their rule 5 motion to remove individual defendants and professional corporation defendants from a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claim brought by former partners of a law firm.

The defendants also brought a pleadings motion under rules 25.06 and 25.11 to strike the statement of claim.

The court upheld the associate justice's decision, finding that the individual defendants and professional corporation defendants were properly joined under rule 5.02(2)(c) because there was doubt as to the person or persons from whom the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

The court rejected arguments that the pleading was vague or scandalous, finding it adequately pleaded the claims against all defendants.

The court dismissed both the appeal and the pleadings motion.

The appellants brought a motion seeking directions on whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial judgment dismissing a solicitor's negligence action.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim but assessed damages at $1,400, significantly less than the $4.8 million claimed.

The respondent contended that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction under section 19(1.2)(d) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants requested that if the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction, it should constitute itself as a panel of the Divisional Court to hear the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction and declined to constitute itself as a Divisional Court panel, quashing the appeal with costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Damodar Arapakota and the Arapakota 2006 Family Trust from the Superior Court’s order dismissing their application for delay.

The Court found no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the presumption of prejudice was not rebutted.

The Court also refused to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained earlier and would not have affected the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The court granted default judgment in favour of Lorenzo Orsetto and Ricardo Bigioni against 2416022 Ontario Ltd. and John Bigioni, finding that John’s conduct as an officer and director was oppressive and breached the reasonable expectations of the complainants under the Business Corporations Act.

The court ordered John’s removal as officer and director, the sale of his shares, and provided for judgment for any shortfall.

The decision reviews the principles of default judgment and oppression remedies, and applies them to the facts of the case.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to remove all defendants except Diamond & Diamond Lawyers LLP from the action, or alternatively to stay the action against those defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs’ pleadings provided a basis for claims against the individual and professional corporation defendants, and that joinder was permissible under Rule 5.02(2)(c) due to doubt as to the proper party from whom relief may be obtained.

The court also found that the inclusion of these parties would not unduly complicate or delay the proceedings or cause undue prejudice.

The plaintiffs, Muhammad and Naseem Farid, sued their former solicitor, Gerald Byron Brunt, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of good faith, and breach of statutory duty after a failed real estate transaction.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have the funds to close the transaction and that the defendant was not responsible for the failure.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' evidence as inconsistent and unsupported by documentary evidence, and found the expert evidence provided by the plaintiffs to be partial and unreliable.

The action was dismissed, and even if liability had been found, damages would have been limited to $1,400.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action against the Township of Wainfleet for the destruction of a diseased apple orchard under the Weed Control Act.

They sought damages for negligence, misfeasance, trespass, and nuisance, and declarations that the Township's bylaw was passed in bad faith, not in the public interest, improperly targeted them, and was ultra vires.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusions that the bylaw was valid, the Township followed proper procedures including public notice, and the appellants were not targeted.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision to dismiss an application for delay.

The respondents, Robert Saltsman and the "Director Respondents" (Krishnasamy Parthiban, Andrew Lindzon, and Issa Nakhleh), sought costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the dismissal motion and the underlying application.

The applicants argued the costs were excessive.

The court found Mr. Saltsman's claimed costs of $38,696.62 reasonable and fixed them as claimed.

For the Director Respondents, the court allowed their motion costs of $27,177.12 but substantially reduced their application costs from $56,493.15 to $46,846.39 due to insufficient detail justifying the hours claimed for "preparation for the application." The total costs awarded to the Director Respondents were $74,023.51.

The applicants were ordered to pay costs jointly and severally.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully resisting an anti-SLAPP motion brought by two defendants and partially succeeding on a motion to strike pleadings.

The court, interpreting section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, ruled that a responding party who successfully resists an anti-SLAPP motion is generally not entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances warrant it.

Despite the plaintiff incurring significant legal expenses and the judge's view that the motion was "on the wrong side of the boundary" of abusive use, the court found no basis to deviate from the statutory rule, compelling it to deny costs.

However, a separate settlement for $4,000 was reached with another defendant (CUHMA) for their appearance.

The defendants Kenneth LeDez and Ron Linden brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), or alternatively, to strike certain pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff, a hyperbaric medicine specialist, sued after LeDez accused her of unethical conduct and orchestrated her removal from a professional association, stemming from her "off-label" use of hyperbaric procedures.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendants lacked a valid defense, and that the public interest in allowing the suit to continue outweighed protecting the defendants' expressions, which were found to exceed privileged occasions and potentially be malicious.

The alternative motion to strike pleadings was granted in part, striking claims for unlawful interference with economic relations, conspiracy, bad faith, and breach of fiduciary duty, but allowing the corporate oppression remedy claim to stand as it was based on specific corporate acts rather than expressions.

The plaintiff, a commercial tenant, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant landlord from terminating its tenancy and repossessing the premises due to alleged discrepancies in square footage and other complaints.

The plaintiff was in significant rent arrears, having unilaterally abated rent based on its claims.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, emphasizing the tenant's obligation to pay rent in full under a commercial lease, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff objected to the defendant's production of 17,000 documents in a common Schedule "A" for two intertwined actions, arguing for separate listings.

The court dismissed the objection, finding the issues in both proceedings virtually the same and the production not extraordinarily burdensome, especially with the availability of e-discovery tools.

The court deemed the defendant's approach efficient, affordable, and proportionate.

This endorsement addresses an application by Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. to enforce a Chinese judgment against Fasteners & Fittings Inc. The respondent opposed enforcement, raising defences of natural justice and public policy, arguing the foreign judgment was obtained unfairly and its enforcement would violate Canadian public policy, especially given related fraud allegations against Michael Wang (owner of the applicant) in a separate Canadian action.

The court found that the complex issues, including the potential for a new defence to foreign judgment enforcement and the need for full evidence and participation from all interested parties (including Michael Wang), could not be fairly determined in a summary process.

Consequently, the application was ordered to proceed to trial as an action, with directions for pleadings, discovery, and a common trial with the related action.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had been granted two extensions but failed to close, and the plaintiff subsequently resold the property to another buyer at a lower price.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding the plaintiff damages for the difference in purchase price, specific incurred costs, and six months of foregone interest on a vendor-take-back mortgage, offset by the defendant's forfeited deposit.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for particulars of an oral supply agreement alleged by the plaintiff in its Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff argued that further particulars were not required and that the issue was res judicata based on a prior Rule 21 motion decision.

The court found that the prior Rule 21 decision did not preclude a motion for particulars.

The court held that the plaintiff's written responses combined with oral clarifications provided during the hearing sufficiently answered the defendants' demands.

The plaintiff was ordered to provide the oral particulars in writing within 20 days.

The plaintiffs sought penalties against the defendants for their continued contempt of court orders requiring them to provide an accounting of $9,000,000 in allegedly defrauded funds, information about luxury automobiles, contact information, and disclosure.

The court found that the defendants had not purged their contempt and provided implausible explanations for their non-compliance.

As a penalty, the court granted judgment against the defendants, striking their ability to defend the action, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought interim orders to compel the sale of a property and non-party document disclosure, alleging oppression and fraud by the defendants.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test for the mandatory interlocutory injunction.

It found a strong prima facie case of oppression due to the defendants' breach of shareholder agreements, diversion of funds, and lack of credibility, evidenced by their non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court approved the plaintiffs' proposed sale of the property for $12 million over the defendants' $15 million offer, citing the plaintiffs' offer's certainty and the defendants' unreliability.

The court also granted the non-party production order.