Arlindo Aragao

The appellant purchased a commercial condominium unit under power of sale proceedings.

The respondents, who operated a Hindu temple in the unit, sought to enforce an unregistered option to purchase contained in their lease with the previous mortgagee in possession.

The motion judge granted specific performance, allowing the respondents to purchase the unit for $350,000.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under the Land Titles Act.

The matter was remitted for a trial on this issue.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to comply with undertakings and answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants diverted funds owed to the plaintiff for goods delivered to Wal-Mart Mexico.

The defendants argued that producing the requested records would impose a disproportionate burden because the records were located in Mexico and the subsidiary was in receivership.

The court ordered the defendants to answer the undertakings and some of the refused questions, and to re-attend for further examination.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding certain records pending the creation of a Discovery Plan, finding that the plaintiff's failure to create a plan contributed to the necessity of the motion.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff, Koolatron Corporation, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to add a claim in fraud against the corporate and individual defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that the fraud was only discovered during examinations for discovery.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the limitation period had expired.

The court found a genuine dispute regarding when the limitation period began to run, which could not be resolved on a motion.

Applying the principles from Frohlick v. Pinkerton Canada Ltd., the court granted the motion to amend, allowing the defendants to plead the limitation period as a defence at trial.

A corporate officer brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a counterclaim alleging defamation and intentional interference with employment following the termination of the counterclaiming party.

The court found the counterclaim failed to plead any specific cause of action or damages against the officer personally and that the evidentiary record disclosed no basis for personal liability.

All alleged acts were performed in the officer’s corporate capacity on behalf of the employer corporation, and there was no evidence of fraud, personal benefit, or conduct justifying piercing the corporate veil.

The court held that a wrongful dismissal claim against the employer could not be reframed as a tort claim against the corporate officer.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the counterclaim against the officer.

Following a successful appeal, the court received submissions regarding the costs of the proceedings below before the Registrar in Bankruptcy and the Superior Court.

The parties had previously agreed to fix those costs at $20,000 when the respondent was successful.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to depart from the agreed amount or to deny the successful appellant its costs, ordering the respondent to pay $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a bankruptcy appeal arising from a disallowed proof of claim, the court considered when service of a notice of disallowance became effective for purposes of the 30-day appeal period under s. 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Although the trustee's notice was actually delivered to the law firm identified for correspondence on April 17, 2012, it was addressed to the creditor rather than care of counsel, and there was no acceptance of service by the law firm.

The court held that resort had to be made to the deeming provisions in the Rules of Civil Procedure, making service effective on the fifth day after mailing.

The notice of appeal filed on May 18, 2012 was therefore in time.

The appeal was allowed, the Superior Court order set aside, and the Registrar's order restored.

The appealing party, Your Business Partner Inc., appealed the Trustee's disallowance of its proofs of claim in the proposal of Dr. Thomas Bell.

The Trustee argued the appeal was filed one day late based on the actual date the registered mail was received.

The court held that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, service by mail is deemed effective on the fifth day after mailing, making the appeal timely.

The court also provided preliminary views that the Trustee's perfunctory disallowance of complex claims was inappropriate and contrary to the remedial intent of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The parties presented correspondence indicating their agreement on a costs award of $500 to reimburse the self-represented respondent for her out-of-pocket expenses.

The court found the agreed amount reasonable and ordered the appellant to pay $500 in costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties provided written submissions on costs.

The parties agreed to a costs award of $500 to reimburse the respondent for out-of-pocket expenses.

The court approved the joint request and ordered the appellant to pay $500 in costs.

The appellant moving company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $22,419.00 in damages for retaining her personal property.

The dispute arose when the appellant demanded $889.88 for a move the respondent understood to be a fixed price of $500.00.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's conclusions that a fixed price contract existed, the damage award was appropriate, and there was no bias shown by the trial judge.

The appellant moving company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $22,419.00 in damages for retaining her personal property.

The dispute arose when the appellant demanded $889.88 instead of the agreed $500.00 for a move, and subsequently placed the respondent's property in storage when she refused to pay the higher amount.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's conclusions that there was a fixed price contract and that the damage award was appropriate.

The court also rejected the appellant's claim of judicial bias.

The mortgagee appealed a final order discharging a mortgage and awarding full indemnity costs to the mortgagors.

The motions judge had found that the mortgagee acted in bad faith by claiming the mortgage was in default due to insufficient insurance and adding improper charges to the discharge statement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's application of the law to the undisputed facts or in her exercise of discretion regarding costs.