Andra M. Pollak

The applicant purchased commercial condominium units and subsequently acquired a communication unit without conducting due diligence, such as obtaining a status certificate or performing a title search.

The communication unit was subject to a registered lien for unpaid common expenses.

The applicant sought an oppression remedy, alleging the condominium corporation misled it into purchasing the unit and seeking an order compelling the corporation to take back title without the applicant paying the lien.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was responsible for its failure to verify title and that the corporation was entitled to enforce its lien before accepting a transfer of the unit.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's order dismissing their motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the respondents' matrimonial home.

The appellants alleged the transfer of the home from the respondent husband to his wife was a fraudulent conveyance to defeat creditors in an underlying action regarding a condominium development.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Judge correctly applied the Grefford test, properly excluded an affidavit from a separate proceeding, and reasonably concluded the appellants failed to establish a high probability of success in the main action or that the balance of convenience favoured a CPL.

The plaintiff brought an action for constructive dismissal and breach of contract against his former employer.

The defendant did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an uncontested basis.

The court found the plaintiff was constructively dismissed after the employer unilaterally modified his duties to marginalize his role and hired a replacement for him to report to.

The court awarded damages for failure to deliver shares under the employment contract, damages in lieu of six months' reasonable notice, and aggravated and punitive damages for the employer's egregious conduct.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant commercial unit owners sought leave to appeal and to set aside an arbitration award that dismissed their oppression claims against the respondent condominium corporation.

The appellants alleged the respondent failed to enforce its declaration regarding unauthorized business uses.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding that the parties were bound by an arbitration agreement that precluded appeals.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellants had a full opportunity to present their case and the arbitrator provided logical and transparent reasons for concluding they failed to prove oppression.

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old medical secretary, was dismissed during the COVID-19 pandemic after her request to work remotely was denied.

The employer initially provided working notice but later alleged after-acquired cause upon discovering the plaintiff had improperly accessed and created medical charts for herself and family members using the clinic's electronic database.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's human rights and wrongful dismissal claims, finding the employer had accommodated her to the point of undue hardship given the clinic's confidentiality requirements and pandemic-related challenges.

The court further held that the plaintiff's unauthorized access to medical records constituted a serious privacy breach that struck at the heart of the employment relationship, justifying termination for cause.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a defamation action under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing that their publications regarding childcare practices at a licensed daycare facility related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants' coordinated campaign of negative online reviews and social media posts were defamatory, malicious, and caused serious reputational and economic harm.

The court found that while the publications related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs established substantial merit to their defamation claim and that the defendants had no valid defences.

The court further found that the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression, particularly given evidence of a coordinated malicious campaign to shut down the daycare.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant, Janice Antonio, Executrix of The Estate of Inez Antonio, appealed a discretionary decision of an Associate Justice to extend the time to set the action down for trial under rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Associate Justice correctly identified and applied the legal test, considered the relevant evidence, and exercised discretion appropriately.

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

The decision concerns claims by the plaintiffs to set aside various transfers of property, shares, and a trademark by the defendant Pooniah Soundrarajan to family members and related companies, on the basis that they were fraudulent conveyances intended to defeat creditors, and also claims of oppression and unjust enrichment.

The court reviews the evidence for badges of fraud, the timing and context of the transfers, and the adequacy of consideration.

The court grants a non-suit on the claim regarding the transfer of the matrimonial home but finds a prima facie case regarding the share and trademark transfers and oppression, ultimately declaring those transfers void as against the plaintiffs.

The court considered a claim by Country Wide Homes Upper Thornhill Estates Inc. against Xiaowan Liu for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a luxury home.

Liu failed to close the transaction, alleging language barriers and misrepresentation regarding environmental issues and a Certificate of Property Use (CPU).

The court found that Liu was an experienced purchaser, had the assistance of a real estate agent, and received all required disclosures, including the CPU.

The court held that the plaintiff met its disclosure obligations under the Environmental Protection Act and that Liu was liable for the shortfall on resale and carrying costs, totaling $741,999.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The Trustee sought to set aside a transfer of property from Kaldep Singh Gidda to Sunita Rani Saini as a transfer at undervalue under section 96(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or alternatively under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court found that the transfer occurred within one year of bankruptcy, between non-arm’s length parties, and for no consideration.

The court rejected Ms. Saini’s defences of resulting or constructive trust, finding no evidence of a trust, loan, or gift, and held that her payments for mortgage and expenses did not create an equitable interest.

The Trustee was successful and awarded costs.

The plaintiff, Giuseppe Lisozzi, brought a motion seeking a full accounting of the defendant Montana Holdings Limited's Power of Sale transaction, including documentary proof for claimed deductions and expenses, and payment of proper residual funds.

Montana consented to the accounting but brought a cross-motion for security for costs, arguing the plaintiff was impecunious and the action frivolous.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an accounting, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to a significant sum and was not impecunious.

The court dismissed the defendant's cross-motion for security for costs, ruling that imposing security for costs was not a reasonable term or condition for granting the accounting order, as the accounting request was not directly related to the plaintiff's claim of an improvident sale and the plaintiff had no improper motive.

In a trial for conversion, the plaintiff claimed the landlord unlawfully disposed of its racking system after a lease disclaimer.

The landlord argued the racking was deemed abandoned under a court order from bankruptcy proceedings or, alternatively, that its disposal was justified due to the plaintiff's trespass.

The court found that the "deemed abandonment" provision in the liquidation order was a valid defense, and even if not, the landlord acted reasonably in disposing of the racking given the plaintiff's trespass and the high costs of preservation.

The plaintiff's claim for conversion was dismissed.

The landlord's counterclaim for lost rental revenue was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence on damages.

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) brought a motion to stay, dismiss, or strike an application filed by Richard and Tracy Grey.

The Greys had been charged by OMVIC with acting as unregistered motor vehicle dealers and sought an order of prohibition from the Superior Court of Justice to prevent their trial in the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ).

OMVIC argued the application was frivolous and an abuse of process, contending that the Greys' defence should be heard at first instance in the OCJ, with a right of appeal to the Superior Court.

The court dismissed the Greys' application, finding it lacked legal merit, was premature, and constituted a collateral attack on the OCJ's authority, thus being an abuse of process.

Costs were awarded to OMVIC.

This case, originally an application for damages for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and later converted to a trial, involved the plaintiff's attempt to purchase a gas station from the defendants.

The court found that the defendant seller breached the APS by failing to arrange sufficient financing and not being ready to close the transaction.

However, the plaintiff's claim for damages was dismissed as it failed to prove it suffered any damages, specifically by not establishing the market value of the property at the date of breach and by relying on inadmissible hearsay evidence for lost opportunity damages.

The court declined to award costs, ordering each party to bear its own.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

The applicant, Unitop, sought a declaration and injunction against the respondent, Exclusive, alleging breach of a 2015 default judgment and trademark infringement/passing off.

Unitop claimed Exclusive's "ORIGINAL SESAME" product, with similar packaging and UPC codes, infringed on Unitop's "SESAME SNAPS" intellectual property.

The court found the 2015 default judgment ambiguous and not applicable to Unitop's new packaging design (adopted in 2020) or Exclusive's "ORIGINAL SESAME" product (introduced in 2021).

The court also determined that Unitop failed to prove valid and enforceable trademark or copyright rights in its new packaging design or establish the elements of passing off, particularly distinctiveness and confusion.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp., sought damages for fraud against multiple defendants, including two individuals (Cook and Daoust) who created false invoices, and an Enbridge employee (Zito) and Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., alleging their involvement or vicarious liability.

The court found that Liquid Capital failed to prove Mr. Zito's participation in the fraud on a balance of probabilities, noting the plaintiff's significant lack of due diligence due to an misplaced trust in one of the fraudsters.

The court also determined that even if Mr. Zito had been involved, Enbridge would not be vicariously liable as Mr. Zito acted outside the scope of his employment and lacked the authority to approve such contracts or invoices.

The action against the defendants was dismissed.

This case involved two consolidated applications concerning a dispute over the allocation of Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on the sale of a mixed-use property.

The Vendor (Miculinic Investment Corporation) sought the release of escrow funds withheld by the Purchaser (1000029174 Ontario Inc. and 2303515 Ontario Inc.), who had objected to the Vendor's HST allocation and sought a judicial declaration on the residential portion's value.

The court found that it was not its role to determine the HST amount, as the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had already made an assessment.

The court granted the Vendor's application for the release of escrow funds, finding the Purchaser's allocation not unreasonable but upholding the Vendor's right to the funds based on the CRA's assessment and the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Purchaser's cross-application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a systems technician, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal, aggravated, punitive, and/or moral damages.

The plaintiff was terminated after refusing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy implemented by the employer's primary client, Bell, which accounted for over 99% of the employer's business.

The employer argued that the employment contract was frustrated due to the plaintiff's inability to perform essential duties.

The court found that Bell's vaccination policy was an unforeseen supervening event beyond the parties' control, leading to a radical change in the employment contract.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the action was dismissed, as the employment contract was deemed frustrated, negating any entitlement to common law reasonable notice.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against the condominium corporation and its board of directors seeking an oppression remedy and compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The applicants alleged the board acted oppressively by ignoring communications, mishandling an elevator malfunction, and copying the applicants' employers on a warning letter regarding harassment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board acted reasonably and in good faith in response to the applicants' excessive communications.

The court also held that several of the applicants' claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that defamation claims could not be brought via application.