Andra M. Pollak

The defendant, Ben Rabidoux, brought a motion to dismiss a defamation and breach of contract action initiated by the plaintiffs, Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital Inc., Jawad Rathore, and Vince Petrozza.

The motion was brought under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation, s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, alleging the action was a "gag proceeding" arising from expressions relating to matters of public interest.

The court found that Rabidoux's tweets, concerning OSC violations, syndicated mortgages, and condo developments related to the plaintiffs' business, constituted matters of public interest.

The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate substantial merit, no valid defence, and sufficiently serious harm outweighing the public interest in protecting expression.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide credible and compelling evidence of specific damages, noting that other public comments and regulatory issues were more likely sources of reputational harm.

Consequently, the action against Rabidoux was dismissed.

The court declined to award punitive damages due to lack of quantification submissions.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for solicitor's negligence, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, alleged he discovered the negligence later than the defendant claimed.

The court applied the Hryniak roadmap and found the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption that the limitation period had expired, as he was aware of the material facts constituting his cause of action by July 2009 at the latest.

The defendant's motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against Ashok and Usha Badhwar on a written guarantee secured by a mortgage, and for default judgment against Rochak Badhwar for an unpaid debt of $938,919.12.

The Badhwars raised the defence of non est factum, claiming they did not know what they were signing and that there was no consideration for the guarantee.

The court found no misrepresentation to support the non est factum defence, as conceded by Badhwar on cross-examination.

The defence of no consideration due to the guarantee being signed after loan monies were advanced was not considered because it was not properly pleaded.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted judgment against Rochak and the Badhwars, allowing enforcement of the mortgage.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion for summary judgment.

The successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the motion was unreasonable.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not justify such an award.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $43,777.33.

The defendants were successful on a motion and sought costs.

The parties had agreed during the hearing that if the defendants were successful, they would be entitled to partial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and ordered costs of $35,000 to the defendants based on the agreement.

Solea International BVBA (Solea) brought a motion for summary judgment against Bassett & Walker International Inc. (BWI) for payment of a shrimp shipment.

BWI disputed liability, claiming Solea failed to provide proper import documents (a valid health certificate) for Mexican customs.

Solea countered that BWI's own actions prevented importation and that BWI had acknowledged payment responsibility.

The court applied the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined there was no evidence of a deficient health certificate from Solea or that such a deficiency caused BWI's inability to import.

Instead, evidence suggested BWI failed to pay port fees.

The motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of Solea for $228,604.50 (U.S.), plus pre and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued the developer and vendor for negligence and breach of warranty regarding HVAC system deficiencies.

The defendants and third parties moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the limitation period.

The court found a genuine issue requiring trial due to insufficient explanatory expert evidence regarding discoverability of the systemic defect versus localized leaks.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaratory judgment affirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to order post-conviction disclosure for individuals claiming wrongful conviction.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion to strike the application, arguing the applicant lacked standing, the application was premature, and it failed to meet the section 7 Charter test.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the respondent had not met the high threshold of demonstrating it was plain, obvious, and beyond doubt that the application could not succeed.

The respondent brought a motion seeking various declarations and judicial notice of facts, raising constitutional arguments as a defence to pending vexatious litigant applications under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent argued his motion should be heard immediately, prior to the scheduled applications.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that previous scheduling orders intended for the constitutional issues to be heard by the Applications Judge alongside the main applications, and that hearing them separately would be against the interests of justice.

The defendants Tholos Restaurant Inc. and Kaytoo Restaurant and Bar Limited brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence action brought by the plaintiff, Matthew Linton, who suffered a severe brain injury after falling down steps at a chalet following a bachelor party.

The plaintiff alleged commercial host liability, arguing the defendants overserved him alcohol, leading to his intoxication.

The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the amount of alcohol consumed, when and where it was consumed, and whether the commercial hosts knew or ought to have known of the plaintiff's intoxication.

The court emphasized the conflict between expert toxicologist evidence (suggesting obvious intoxication) and lay witness statements (denying visible impairment), and the risk of inconsistent findings if the motion were granted while the action against other defendants proceeded to trial.

Following a trial, the parties agreed that the partial indemnity costs recovery figure would be $60,000, subject to arguments on the appropriate scale.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer and the plaintiff's alleged unreasonable behaviour.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments for substantial indemnity costs and ordered the plaintiff to pay the agreed partial indemnity costs of $60,000.

The plaintiff, Rockface Capital Advisors Ltd., brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant, Mountain Province Diamonds Inc., seeking US$126,500 plus interest and costs for services rendered under a debt consultant contract.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a contract clause defining the "Success Fee" as 0.25% of the "principal debt" with specific exclusions for accrued interest and capitalized financing fees.

Rockface argued for the full loan facility amount, while Mountain Province contended that certain fees and interest should be deducted.

The court found the contract language clear, supporting Mountain Province's interpretation, and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The applicant, an auditing firm, sought judgment against the respondents for unpaid invoices via an application.

The respondents disputed the fees, alleging a promised discount and challenging the contractual interest rate.

The court considered whether the matter could be resolved by application or required conversion to an action.

Finding material facts in dispute regarding the alleged discount and the need for pleadings to clarify legal positions, the court concluded that the application was not a "clearest of cases" suitable for resolution on a paper record.

The application was therefore converted into an action, and a trial was directed, with a timetable for the exchange of pleadings.

The defendant, Roman Vasylyovy Karaman, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from a car accident that resulted in the death of Denis Kavounov.

The central issue was who was driving the car.

Mr. Karaman, the only survivor, testified he was a passenger and Mr. Kavounov was driving.

The plaintiffs' expert evidence concluded it was not possible to determine who was driving.

The court found no contradictory evidence to Mr. Karaman's direct testimony and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against Mr. Karaman.

The plaintiff, a long-term sales agent, was terminated for cause by the defendant insurance company after refusing to accept fundamental changes to his employment terms, including relocation and a new compensation model.

The court found that the employer provided reasonable notice of the changes and that the plaintiff's refusal to comply constituted insubordination and abandonment of employment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for wrongful dismissal and damages, including claims for ongoing commissions and 'lifetime renewals', finding that the employment contract provisions ceased upon termination for cause and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by refusing a reasonable offer of continued employment.

The plaintiff, Igal Shapiro, claimed insurance benefits from Economical Mutual Insurance Company (his father's insurer) or compensation from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund after being hit by an unidentified driver.

Economical and the Superintendent of Financial Services brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claim, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove he was hit by an "unidentified automobile" as defined by the Insurance Act and the MVAC Act, and did not make reasonable efforts to identify the driver.

The court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving injury by an "unidentified motorist" and that the evidence presented was insufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action against Economical and implicitly against the Superintendent.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for medical and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant argued the plaintiff's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) $3,500 cap and that no evidence supported the income replacement claim.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to put his best foot forward by adducing medical evidence to rebut the defendant's section 44 assessments.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.

The self-represented applicant, a resident of a homeless shelter, brought an application against the shelter and its manager alleging bullying, negligence, and violations of his Charter rights under sections 2, 12, and 15.

Following a summary trial, the court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide any evidentiary or legal basis to support his allegations of cruel and unusual treatment, discrimination, or negligence.

The respondents' evidence demonstrated that they acted reasonably and that the applicant was aggressive and refused to follow shelter rules.

The party seeking costs sought an award on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion.

The court found that the opposing party had acted unreasonably by proceeding with the motion despite being warned that they were in breach of a previous costs order.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $8,398.

The parties submitted written costs submissions following a consent order.

The court reviewed the Family Law Rules and principles for awarding costs in family law matters.

Because the parties did not reserve the right to request costs when they entered into the consent order, the court found it inappropriate to make a costs award.

No costs were ordered.