Arkadi Bouchelev

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were provided by any party, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant sought an interest in two properties based on constructive or resulting trust, an equalization of net family property, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant lacked credibility, had unclean hands, and failed to prove any contributions to the properties.

The court determined the date of separation was in April 2013, making the equalization claim time-barred under the Family Law Act.

The spousal support claim was also dismissed.

Despite the respondents' success, no costs were awarded because they had knowingly breached prior court orders regarding the properties.

The parties brought cross-motions concerning discovery issues, including compelling answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals, access to accounting software, and setting a timetable for subsequent steps.

The court ordered various questions to be answered and documents produced, emphasizing relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Access to the defendant's accounting software was granted to the plaintiff.

The court also set a timetable for further discovery and expert reports, reserving costs to the trial judge due to divided success.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application seeking to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from nearby livestock facilities to permit the construction of a residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality revised its position to support a partial reduction in the setbacks, while the appellant sought further reductions to maximize the buildable area.

The Tribunal authorized the municipality's proposed variances, finding they represented a balanced approach that provided a reasonable development opportunity while protecting agricultural resources and minimizing impacts on the adjacent farm.

The appellant's requested further reductions were denied as they failed to have appropriate regard for the MDS Guidelines and the public interest.

The respondents sought damages arising from an interim injunction obtained by the applicant, alleging it was an excessive overreach and caused them financial harm by preventing a property sale.

The court found that proper notice was provided for the initial injunction hearing, and it did not proceed on an *ex parte* basis.

While some facts were not disclosed by the applicant, the court determined these omissions were not material to the necessity of the injunction, which was granted to maintain the status quo and protect the public interest in remediating provincially significant wetlands.

The respondents had also consented to the injunction's continuance after the initial period.

As the respondents eventually remediated the property, the merits of the underlying application for a permanent injunction were never judicially determined.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for damages, exercising its discretion due to the respondents' inequitable conduct and the applicant's role as a public body acting in the public interest.

The plaintiff property owner sought declarations that her building was originally constructed as two semi-detached units or, alternatively, that she was entitled to four residential units based on a legal non-conforming use.

The municipality had placed a stop-work order on her renovations.

Relying on expert architectural and engineering evidence, the court found the building was originally constructed in 1906 as a single-family dwelling with internal access between areas.

The court also found no evidence that the building ever contained four residential units prior to the 1977 zoning by-laws.

The requested declarations were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged the failure to close was due to a lack of financing, while the defendants claimed it was due to deficiencies identified during the pre-delivery inspection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence on the reason for the breach of contract, combined with the prohibition on cross-examinations under Rule 76, created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

This endorsement addresses ongoing disagreements between counsel, leading to a civil case conference.

The parties agreed to orders for the respondents to produce a realtor's complete file and for cross-examinations to proceed with documents marked as exhibits pending privilege determination.

The court admonished counsel for their uncivil and uncooperative conduct, emphasizing that civil case conferences are not for resolving civility issues and that counsel have a strict obligation to act reasonably and collaboratively.

The court ordered that no further motions or civil case conferences could be brought without leave.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for the construction of a single-family dwelling.

The parties were unable to agree on a single Issues List.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order that included both parties' separate Issues Lists and scheduled a seven-day hearing on the merits for October 2023.

The parties requested an adjournment at the commencement of a two-day merit hearing concerning a minor variance appeal, indicating that a settlement was imminent but required further due diligence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the complexity of the case, and scheduled a new two-day merit hearing out of an abundance of caution in case the settlement does not fully materialize.

The appellants, suspected of defrauding the respondents of over US $71 million, entered into a settlement agreement requiring them to return assets in exchange for the respondents discontinuing various global civil proceedings.

The appellants brought a motion to compel the respondents to also withdraw Interpol Red Notices and discontinue criminal proceedings in Iran, or alternatively to set aside the settlement.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondents only agreed to request the withdrawal of criminal proceedings, as they had no authority to unilaterally dismiss them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the settlement agreement and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to permit the construction of a single-family dwelling.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize these documents and set a hearing date.

The appellant appealed a minor variance application seeking relief from Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks to build a residential dwelling.

During the hearing, it became apparent that the appellant relied on an outdated zoning by-law and sought to change the requested relief mid-hearing.

Due to these material issues and misunderstandings, the Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference and ordered procedural steps, including the exchange of revised expert witness statements and sketches, before rescheduling the merit hearing.

The moving parties (respondents in the main action) sought to enforce a settlement agreement or have it declared void ab initio, arguing the responding parties (applicants in the main action) failed to fulfill their obligation to withdraw criminal proceedings in Iran and remove Interpol Red Notices.

The court interpreted the agreement using the principles from Sattva, finding the responding parties only agreed to request the withdrawal and cooperate, as they lacked the authority to compel the independent Iranian Prosecutor or Interpol.

The court rejected expert evidence claiming the responding parties were Iranian government-controlled entities capable of commanding such actions.

The motion was dismissed, and the responding parties were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs sued their accounting firm and its principals for fraud, breach of contract, and misappropriation of funds after discovering that corporate taxes and payroll deductions had never been remitted to the CRA.

The court found the accounting firm and the son who misappropriated the funds liable for damages.

However, the court dismissed the claims against the father, finding he was not willfully blind and the firm was not his alter ego.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Halton Region Conservation Authority to void a development permit for a home renovation.

After the partial collapse of walls during construction, the Authority voided the permit without notice or a hearing, claiming the scope of work had fundamentally changed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding it both unreasonable and procedurally unfair because the Authority failed to follow the mandatory show cause hearing process set out in section 8 of O. Reg. 162/06.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment granting minor variances to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The variances related to density, height, setbacks, gross floor area, landscaping, parking, and loading.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding area, provided appropriate transition, and supported intensification and transit policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.

The defendants brought a motion to have a 2015 action tried together with two earlier actions (the Loan Actions) which had already been ordered to be tried together.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the 2015 action did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the Loan Actions, and there were no common questions of fact or law.

Furthermore, the court noted the defendants' unexplained delay in bringing the motion, which would have unnecessarily delayed the trial of the 2015 action currently scheduled to proceed.

This appeal concerned a failed residential real estate transaction where the appellant refused to close, alleging an undisclosed basement defect.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondents (sellers), finding the defect was readily apparent and applying the principle of *caveat emptor*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision, finding no material error in the analysis, despite acknowledging a minor error in relying on hearsay evidence.

The court emphasized the appellant's delay in raising the issue and his financial difficulties as factors supporting the motion judge's findings.

The applicants, the RCMP Registrar of Firearms and a section head, sought to quash subpoenas requiring them to testify at a reference hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice regarding the revocation of firearms registration certificates.

The respondents had obtained the subpoenas under section 698 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice held that a reference under the Firearms Act is not a proceeding to which the Criminal Code applies, as it is more akin to an administrative or civil proceeding.

Consequently, the subpoenas were quashed.