Anthony Colangelo

The applicant purchased a property in 2018 with title held 99% in his name and 1% in the names of the respondents (the parents of his fiancée).

The applicant paid the entire down payment of $430,000 and deposit of $20,000.

The respondents co-signed the mortgage and paid the monthly mortgage payments, while the applicant paid property taxes, utilities, and insurance.

After the relationship between the applicant and the respondent's daughter ended in 2020, the property was sold in 2022.

The respondents claimed either an agreement existed for a 50/50 split of proceeds or that unjust enrichment applied.

The court found no agreement existed and that unjust enrichment did not apply, ordering the proceeds to be distributed according to title (99% to the applicant, 1% to the respondents).

The plaintiff homeowners sued the defendant contractors for breach of contract regarding a backyard renovation project, alleging fundamental breach due to delays, defective workmanship, and misplaced helical piles.

The court found no fundamental breach by the defendants, noting that the deficiencies were either corrected or easily remediable, and that the delays were largely due to the permit process.

Instead, the court held that the plaintiffs breached the contract by refusing to allow the defendants to return to the site to complete the work and fix the deficiencies.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed, the defendants were awarded damages for the unpaid balance of the contract, and the corporate veil was not pierced.

Five members were expelled from a religious congregation, and brought an action seeking a declaration that their expulsion was null and void for violating natural justice.

The appellant church sought summary judgment on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction, as no underlying legal right existed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, but the Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal, holding that the church's written constitution and bylaws constituted a binding contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the motion judge's order, holding that membership in a voluntary association is not automatically contractual and that objective intention to create legal relations — which was absent on this record — is required before a court has jurisdiction to intervene.

The applicant, C.I.D., sought a declaration that its sublease was terminated by operation of law when the head landlord, Correl, changed the locks on the premises due to the head tenant, Garnier's, non-payment of rent.

C.I.D. also sought damages.

Garnier argued an oral rent deferral agreement existed with Correl, making the termination unlawful, and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court found that Correl lawfully terminated the head lease by changing the locks, which automatically terminated the sublease.

The court rejected Garnier's claim of an oral agreement and denied relief from forfeiture due to unclean hands.

The sublease was declared terminated, and damages were referred to a Master.

The plaintiff, Viana Canada Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, Sartotex Inc. and Claudio Baldo, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, good faith, fidelity, and confidentiality by Mr. Baldo, a former sales manager.

The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from soliciting customers/suppliers, competing directly, and using confidential information.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR-MacDonald, requiring a "strong prima facie case" given the injunction's impact on Mr. Baldo's livelihood.

The court found Mr. Baldo was a fiduciary but determined the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unfair competition or solicitation.

The court also found no clear evidence of irreparable harm and concluded that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The moving party wife sought temporary retroactive and prospective child support, as well as a cash payment for her share of the responding party husband's pension.

The husband brought a cross-motion to sever the divorce and argued that retroactive support should be deferred to trial due to conflicting evidence regarding his rental income.

The court granted temporary retroactive and prospective child support based solely on the husband's employment income, deferring the determination of his rental income to trial.

The court also severed the divorce and deferred the pension issue to trial, as the separation agreement did not explicitly require a cash payment.

The appellants, former members of an incorporated church's congregation, were expelled.

They commenced an action to void the expulsion, alleging the church failed to follow its internal procedures and violated their rights.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no underlying contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the church's constitution and by-laws constituted a contract binding on both members and the organization.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the contractual provisions for expulsion were breached, as the respondents failed to adduce sufficient evidence of the procedures followed.

The defendant brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Reply and Defence to Counterclaim under Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied principles of pleading, striking some paragraphs for being prejudicial, legal argument, or evidence, while allowing others deemed harmless or legitimate responses to serious allegations.

The Master emphasized that procedural motions to clean up pleadings are only warranted if they promote a cost-effective, efficient, and just resolution.

The motion was partially successful, with costs awarded to the moving party.

The father brought a motion to change seeking to retroactively terminate child support for his adult daughter, who was 29 years old at the time of trial.

The mother initially opposed the motion but later abandoned her claim for continued support.

The central issues were: (1) when child support should have terminated; (2) whether the father overpaid support; (3) whether the father should recover overpayments; and (4) whether the mother could set off unpaid costs orders against any overpayment.

The court found that child support terminated as of April 30, 2010, resulting in an overpayment of $40,947.39 to the father.

The court also found that two costs orders totaling $14,932.72 (exclusive of interest) remained unpaid by the father and were subject to set-off.

The judgment was rendered with outstanding issues regarding interest calculations, the applicability of laches, and pre-judgment interest to be determined in subsequent submissions.