Angelo P. Fazari

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, a default judgment of over $100,000, and related enforcement steps.

The plaintiffs, who were elderly, had pledged their securities and co-signed a loan for the defendant, who subsequently defaulted.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms test and found the defendant's delay in responding to the claim was deliberate and inexcusable, and his proposed defence lacked an air of reality.

The motion was dismissed, and the stay of garnishment was lifted.

Following dismissal of an application seeking issuance of a building permit for a lot created through a scheme found to constitute a “fraud upon the Planning Act,” the successful municipal respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant resisted both the scale and quantum of costs.

The court held that while the applicant’s conduct constituted a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Planning Act, it did not amount to criminal fraud warranting full indemnity costs.

Considering the complexity of the planning and real property issues, the long procedural history, and the conduct of the parties, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent municipality was awarded $40,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought an order compelling the municipality to issue a building permit for a parcel created through a series of intra-family conveyances designed to circumvent the Planning Act.

The court examined whether the parcel constituted a valid lot and whether the municipality could refuse the permit under the Building Code Act on the basis of contravention of other applicable law.

The court held that the initial conveyances forming the root of title were fraudulent and constituted a deceit upon the Planning Act because the purported vendors were never owners of the land.

As a result, the deeds were invalid and could not create a valid chain of title or be cured by the 40‑year rule, Planning Act statements, or subsequent conversion to land titles.

The court concluded that the building permit application was the “fruit from the poisoned tree” and refused to grant relief.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licensee's liquor licence after undercover police officers purchased cocaine from patrons on the premises on multiple occasions.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the licensee admitted to violating subsection 45(2) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 30-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellants, Ferri and Mammoliti, were charged with extortion and theft after removing and demanding payment for the return of approximately 2,000 boxes of bank records from a building Ferri had purchased from the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

After the criminal charges were withdrawn or quashed, the appellants sued the police and Crown attorneys for malicious prosecution, false arrest, negligence, and Charter breaches.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the police and Crown had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute and whether they acted with malice.

The dismissal of the false arrest and imprisonment claims was upheld as statute-barred.

Following further written representations on costs and funds in court, the Court of Appeal amended its order in a commercial appeal.

The court directed that funds paid by the appellant on account of land transfer tax relating to a registered instrument be released from prior orders and paid to the appellant.

The remaining issues of costs and the balance of money in court were left to the assessment officer, with the remaining funds to stay in court pending a final order of assessment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge’s conclusion that a purported purchase and sale transaction was not genuine and therefore was not bona fide for the purposes of s. 70 of the Registry Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge found the transaction to be a sham and that there was ample evidence supporting that conclusion, including back-dated documents, lack of due diligence, and deficiencies in the evidence.

A cross-appeal concerning slander of title, punitive damages, and costs was also dismissed, although leave to appeal costs was granted.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, except that a non-participating respondent was awarded no costs.