Angela Assuras

The plaintiff business owner sued his commercial property insurer for failing to pay two claims for water damage to his inventory caused by a leaking roof.

The insurer denied the claims because the plaintiff failed to provide reliable proof of the value of the damaged goods, submitting invoices that were found to be inauthentic and for counterfeit products.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the first claim was barred by a valid one-year contractual limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his losses on a balance of probabilities and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture due to his unreasonable conduct in providing fake invoices.

The appellant debtor appealed a motion judge's declaration that his debt to the respondent mortgagee was not released by his discharge from bankruptcy due to fraud, pursuant to s. 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appellant argued that fraud was not sufficiently pleaded in the original statement of claim and that consenting to judgment did not constitute an admission of fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that specific reference to s. 178 or particularized pleading of fraud is not required for a debt to survive bankruptcy.

The court found that the motion judge correctly determined the nature of the debt by examining the pleadings, which clearly suggested fraudulent conduct, and that the consent judgment was broad enough to encompass fraud.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion opposing the confirmation of a report made by an Associate Judge following a consolidated construction lien action.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's decision.

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

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant general contractor to enforce a construction lien and for breach of contract regarding structural steel and miscellaneous metals work on a school project.

The court found that the parties had entered into two separate contracts.

The plaintiff failed to preserve its lien rights for the structural steel contract in a timely manner, but its claim was permitted to proceed as a personal judgment under section 63 of the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff's lien for the miscellaneous metals contract was validly preserved.

The court conducted a detailed accounting of the base contract prices, approved extras, and valid charge-backs for deficient or incomplete work performed by third parties.

Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff a net judgment of $99,346.83 across both contracts.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to confirm an Associate Justice's order that enforced a default payment provision of $286,061.10 under a settlement agreement.

The respondent's late payment was due to junior counsel being distracted by her wedding and honeymoon.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the Associate Justice erred in enforcing the default provision.

The appeal and request for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former partner in a law firm with the defendants, brought an action for a declaration of partnership dissolution, an accounting, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of shares.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the plaintiff's departure from the partnership, precluding further adjustments or liability for a Vancouver office lease.

However, the court found the defendants liable for conversion of the plaintiff's personal shares held as security, awarding $65,226.15 in damages.

The court also awarded $50,000 in damages for breach of fiduciary duty due to the defendants' failure to disclose partnership draws taken shortly before the plaintiff's departure, though it rejected claims that this failure caused the plaintiff's subsequent significant tax liabilities.

The appellant tenant, Tabriz Persian Cuisine Inc., appealed a trial decision upholding the respondent landlord's refusal to consent to a lease assignment.

The landlord, Highrise Property Group Inc., had refused consent primarily due to the tenant's unauthorized patio, which constituted a breach of the lease, and also sought the discontinuation of a parallel lawsuit.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's finding that the landlord's refusal was reasonable, as the tenant's failure to rectify the lease breach provided a sufficient basis for refusal, even though the demand to discontinue the lawsuit was an unreasonable collateral purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a 19-day construction lien trial, a procedural dispute arose regarding closing submissions.

The defendant filed a surrebuttal that raised a new defence under the Limitations Act, 2002, and implicitly alleged professional negligence against the plaintiff's counsel.

The plaintiff requested a right of reply.

The court granted the plaintiff a limited right of reply, finding that trial fairness dictated the plaintiff must have an opportunity to respond to a newly raised, unpleaded limitations defence.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claims for breach of a settlement agreement, defamation, wrongful interference, and oppression, while upholding a small claim for unpaid invoices.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's failure to find an accord and satisfaction regarding the unpaid invoices.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondents.

At a case conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural delays and tactical gamesmanship between the parties.

The defendants sought to bring a contempt motion for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with an order to answer undertakings, while the plaintiffs sought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Relying on the culture shift mandated by Hryniak and the powers under Rule 50.13, the court declined to schedule formal motions and instead made summary orders directing the plaintiffs to comply with the prior order, produce physical flooring samples in Toronto for inspection, and file corrected pleadings.

The moving party, a subcontractor, brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of an Associate Justice's report arising from a 24-day consolidated construction lien trial.

The subcontractor argued that the Associate Justice erred in finding that the general contractor did not breach the payment terms, that the termination of the contract was justified, and that the general contractor did not breach the duty of good faith.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in principle or palpable and overriding errors of fact or mixed fact and law in the Associate Justice's findings.

The motion to oppose confirmation was denied and the report was confirmed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action regarding a commercial lease dispute, the defendant sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity scale based on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for no costs, noting the defendant's conduct was not vindicated at trial as it had sought an improper collateral benefit when withholding consent to a lease transfer.

The court awarded the defendant fixed costs of $15,000 all-inclusive, balancing the defendant's success with its conduct and the plaintiff's failure to serve an offer to settle.

The plaintiff brought a last-minute motion to adjourn a virtual summary trial, arguing that credibility assessments and voluminous documents required an in-person hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that virtual trials permit effective credibility assessments and electronic document management is efficient.

The court emphasized the strict limits on trial adjournments under the Consolidated Practice Direction and the necessity of proceeding virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff tenant sought damages against the defendant landlord for allegedly unreasonably refusing to consent to an assignment of a commercial lease to a prospective purchaser of the plaintiff's restaurant.

The landlord refused to consider the assignment until the tenant removed an unauthorized patio and dismissed an ongoing lawsuit against the landlord.

The court found that while demanding the dismissal of the lawsuit was an improper collateral purpose, the requirement to remove the unauthorized patio was a reasonable ground to withhold consent.

Because a reasonable basis existed, the refusal was justified, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order directing an election for a new common board of directors for two related not-for-profit corporations and ordering the delivery of keys to a shared property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge had jurisdiction under the Corporations Act to order the election, did not breach procedural fairness, provided adequate reasons, and awarded reasonable costs.

The appellant appealed a Master's judgment granted on a motion to enforce a settlement or for summary judgment in a construction lien reference.

The Divisional Court found that while the Master had jurisdiction to hear the motion, the Master erred by granting a Judgment rather than issuing a Report.

This distinction is critical as it determines the proper routes for review and appeal.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Master to issue a Report.

The plaintiff, Voula Kardaras, sought long-term disability benefits from Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada due to major depressive disorder.

Sun Life discontinued benefits after Kardaras began a gradual return to work, asserting she was capable of full-time employment.

The court found Kardaras was entitled to "own occupation" benefits for approximately one year after discontinuation, as she was incapable of performing the essential duties of her occupation more than three days per week.

However, she was not entitled to "any occupation" benefits as her part-time work was reasonably commensurate in status and reward.

The court also awarded Kardaras $10,000 in mental distress damages due to Sun Life's breach of the duty of good faith in its handling of her claim.

The defendant moved for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff in a construction lien action.

The defendant established a prima facie case that the plaintiff corporation lacked assets.

However, the court found that the plaintiff's principals were 'asset rich and cash poor' due to inaccessible equity in their home, establishing financial hardship.

Because the plaintiff demonstrated a real possibility of success on the merits of its claim, the court held that ordering security for costs would be unjust and dismissed the motion.

Following a successful motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the plaintiff sought costs for both the motion and the underlying action.

The court found that the settlement agreement explicitly provided for the plaintiff's legal costs of the action in the event of default.

After deducting amounts related to a separate union claim, the court awarded the plaintiff $12,000 in partial indemnity costs for the action and $6,500 in partial indemnity costs for the motion.

This decision addresses costs and interest following a trial where ABCO One Corporation's claims were dismissed, and Pomerleau Inc. was awarded $516,458.18 against ABCO.

The court awarded Pomerleau $500,000 in costs against ABCO, considering ABCO's lack of success, its failure to make serious settlement attempts, and its conduct during trial.

Canada-Wide Reinforcing Steel Co. (CW) was awarded $37,000 in substantial indemnity costs against Pomerleau, due to Pomerleau's unreasonable insistence on CW re-proving its default judgment and a 'bullying' settlement offer.

Prejudgment interest on Pomerleau's judgment against ABCO was also calculated based on specific breach dates.