Andrew Ostrom

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiff had invested $105,000 for a 7% interest in the defendant's business based on representations about its profitability.

The business closed shortly after the investment, and the defendant failed to return the funds as required by their agreements.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, awarding the plaintiff $105,000 for the return of the investment, $28,050 in monthly compensation, and $7,000 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment in the amount of $105,000 after the defendant failed to respond to the amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff had purchased a minority shareholding interest in the defendant's business, which was permanently closed shortly after.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the plaintiff to serve the defendant with the motion record and endorsement, adjourning the matter for 30 days to allow the defendant to respond.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for Blaxx Caribbean Dive Bar.

The Registrar alleged that the past or present conduct of the appellant and a co-signer on the lease afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, citing a shooting incident near the premises and alleged non-cooperation with police and AGCO officials.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had been cooperative, that the shooting occurred in a shared parking lot rather than on the licensed premises, and that the co-signer had no financial or management involvement in the business.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the transfer of the licence, subject to a condition regarding exclusive possession.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement to purchase a commercial property through a newly incorporated company.

The plaintiff contributed $400,000 and the defendant was to contribute $2.3 million, but the defendant later refused to provide more than $800,000, causing the transaction to fail.

The vendors sued the plaintiff and the company, resulting in a settlement and forfeited deposit.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract to recover his losses.

The court found a valid oral agreement existed, rejected the defendant's Statute of Frauds and corporate law defences, and awarded the plaintiff $184,230.42 in damages.

The appellant, Terry LeBlanc, was the high bidder at a Sheriff's auction for a residential property.

His winning bid of $260,000 was less than 60% of the lowest appraised value ($320,000), leading to the sale's cancellation based on an internal Attorney General policy.

LeBlanc sued the Crown for breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the contract permitted unilateral cancellation, section 142 of the Courts of Justice Act shielded the respondent, and equitable principles allowed declining enforcement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the auction terms, as announced and posted at the courthouse, allowed for unilateral cancellation up to the time of satisfaction of sale terms, making it unnecessary to address the other grounds.

The appellants, Xundong Qin and Cenith Air Inc., sued the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and three of its employees for malicious prosecution after the OSC's allegations against them were dismissed.

The respondents moved to strike the claim, arguing issue estoppel applied due to a prior Superior Court order by Pattillo J. that continued a freeze order, finding a "serious issue to be tried." The motion judge granted the strike.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the "serious issue to be tried" standard for continuing a freeze order is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable cause" required for malicious prosecution.

Therefore, the issue of reasonable and probable cause was not "necessarily bound up" in Pattillo J.'s decision, and issue estoppel did not apply.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) after the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The defendant's statement of defence alleged fraud or misrepresentation regarding property subdivision, but his affidavit on the motion contradicted this, claiming forgery and incapacity due to medication.

The court found the motion was not premature, ruled the defendant's expert evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03, and held the defendant was bound by admissions in his statement of defence.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding damages for breach of contract.

The plaintiff sued former business partners over promissory notes said to evidence unmatched contributions and direct loans made during the start-up and operation of a food manufacturing business.

The defendants alleged the notes and shareholder agreement were forged, but the court preferred the plaintiff’s evidence, rejected the defendants’ credibility, accepted the plaintiff’s forensic handwriting expert, and gave no weight to the defence expert report for both procedural and substantive reasons.

Applying the Bills of Exchange Act and Interest Act, the court held the notes were valid promissory notes supported by antecedent debt and forbearance, subject to set-off for one defendant’s proven capital contribution.

Punitive damages were refused, with the court holding that litigation misconduct and disclosure failures could be addressed in costs.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought an action against Dr. Chul Yung Kim, seeking a declaration that a loan debt was obtained by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation and therefore not released by his discharge from bankruptcy under section 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that Dr. Kim knowingly made false representations in his Personal Statements of Affairs regarding the ownership and value of a condominium and an aircraft to induce RBC to approve a loan facility and subsequent temporary loan increases.

RBC was found to have relied on these false representations.

The court concluded that Dr. Kim's conduct constituted socially unacceptable behavior that Parliament intended to exclude from bankruptcy protections.

Judgment was granted in favour of RBC, declaring the debt not released by bankruptcy and awarding damages for fraud.

The appellant, a former paralegal, appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding he misappropriated $30,000 in client trust funds and breached his fiduciary duty to the respondent.

The trial judge awarded the respondent $25,000 in damages and dismissed the appellant's counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge made factual errors regarding the purpose of the funds, unfairly restricted cross-examination, and failed to assess his accounts on a quantum meruit basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings and no denial of a fair hearing.

The plaintiff purchased a property at a Sheriff's auction and paid the deposit.

The following day, the Sheriff cancelled the sale because the purchase price was below the internal policy threshold of 60% of the debtor's equity.

The plaintiff sued for damages for breach of contract, relying on a notice in the Ontario Gazette that stated the sale was subject to cancellation 'up to the time of sale'.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the actual Notice of Sheriff's Sale of Land, which allowed cancellation 'up to the time of the satisfaction of the sale terms', governed the auction.

The court also held that the Sheriff, as an officer of the court, acted in good faith and was immune from liability under section 142 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and the granting of summary judgment and broad injunctive relief in a defamation action brought by the respondent union and its members.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the anti-SLAPP motion, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the harm suffered by the respondents outweighed the low public interest in the appellant's expression.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the injunctive relief, narrowing the publication ban to prohibit only defamatory statements and setting aside the restrictions on the appellant's movements and communications as overly broad and unjustified by the defamation findings.

The plaintiff, Luigi Ruffolo, sued The Toronto-Dominion Bank for negligence, breach of contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging an improvident sale of his property under power of sale in 2002.

The Bank brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered his claim on April 27, 2009, when he received the Bank's sale file, and therefore the two-year limitation period expired on April 27, 2011, well before the action was commenced on August 18, 2017.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed as limitation-barred.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property, claiming breach and seeking specific performance.

The Defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no agreement was reached.

The court found that the parties never had a meeting of the minds (consensus ad idem) regarding an essential term, the "renovation clause" which was ambiguous and had different interpretations by each party.

Consequently, no valid contract was formed.

The Plaintiff's motion was dismissed, the action was dismissed, and the deposit was ordered to be returned to the Plaintiff.

The court also hypothetically addressed specific performance, finding the property unique.

The plaintiff, Aldgate Construction (1988) Limited, brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants, Noreast Foods Ltd. and its guarantor Zi Zhong Wu, for unpaid rent and breach of repair covenants under a commercial lease.

Aldgate sought damages of $105,356.88 and dismissal of Noreast's $1,151,421.99 counterclaim for alleged unlawful termination.

The court granted summary judgment in part for Aldgate in the main action, awarding $79,196.52, finding no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the breaches of lease and damages.

However, the court dismissed Aldgate's motion to summarily dismiss the counterclaim, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the lawfulness of Aldgate's re-entry and any consequential damages suffered by Noreast.

The court also specified undisputed material facts for the counterclaim to streamline the subsequent trial.

The applicant brought a motion challenging a retainer agreement with the respondent law firm, which was dismissed.

The court ordered parties seeking costs to file written submissions within a specified timeframe.

Neither party filed submissions, leading to an order that there would be no costs awarded for the motion.

The defendant bankrupt brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff bank's action.

The bank sought a declaration under s. 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that its prior default judgment against the defendant survived bankruptcy due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendant argued the bank was barred from leading extraneous evidence of fraud not pleaded in the original action, relying on Rodriguez.

The court distinguished Rodriguez, finding the rule against extraneous evidence does not apply where the creditor had no knowledge of the fraud prior to obtaining judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the defendant's knowledge of the false representations and the bank's reliance on them.

The plaintiffs brought an action in defamation against the defendant, a former union member, for publishing numerous derogatory posts and videos online.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be heard concurrently with a summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the posts defamatory and malicious, and awarded a permanent injunction and costs.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee without formal accounting qualifications, was terminated from her position as Controller following a corporate merger.

She brought an action for wrongful dismissal, discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against her former employer, its national affiliate, and its external auditor.

On a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants, the court dismissed the claims against the national affiliate and the auditor, as well as the claims for discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff 18 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, along with unpaid vacation pay and a promised legal fee allowance.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence action for delay, the defendant Whyte was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs appealed the initial assessment officer's certificate, and the parties consented to have the court assess the costs de novo.

Applying the factors under Rule 58.06(1), the court reduced the time claimed for discoveries and trial preparation, ultimately assessing the costs at $23,438.50 and ordering the defendant to return the excess amount previously paid by the plaintiffs.