Benjamin Jeffries

The defendant, Klaudia Capalbo, brought an urgent injunction motion against the plaintiff, Michael Monaco, her business and former romantic partner, concerning financial access, salary payment, defamation, and a restraining order.

The parties reached a consent order regarding defamation issues.

The court granted Capalbo's request to increase access to corporate funds for an upcoming event from $130,000 to $200,000, finding it reasonable.

However, the court dismissed her requests for immediate payment of her 2024 salary, deeming it not urgent and part of the broader dispute, and for a physical restraining order against Monaco, finding no evidence of threats or need for physical restraint.

Costs were held in the cause due to mixed results.

The plaintiffs, Donna and Ronald Zoleta, sought summary judgment against the purchaser, Lovesikander Singh, and the real estate agent, RE/MAX Twin City Realty Inc., for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) of a property.

Singh failed to close the transaction after the real estate market declined and an appraisal showed a significantly lower property value, demanding a large abatement.

The plaintiffs relisted the property "pre-emptively" but maintained their intent to close the original deal.

Singh argued the relisting repudiated the contract and prevented him from securing financing, and also alleged conspiracy between the plaintiffs and RE/MAX.

The court found that Singh repudiated the APS by demanding an abatement, and the plaintiffs did not accept this repudiation.

The court further found that the plaintiffs' relisting of the property did not constitute repudiation, as they provided notice and continued to affirm the agreement.

Singh also failed to accept any alleged repudiation by the plaintiffs in a timely manner, instead affirming the contract through requests for extension.

The court dismissed Singh's conspiracy claims due to lack of evidence and damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for damages, and Singh's crossclaim and counterclaim were dismissed.

This decision addresses a Garofoli application to review a search warrant for firearms-related offences.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) used to secure the warrant contained significant false, misleading, and unconstitutionally obtained information, which was excised on review.

The court assessed whether, based on the amended record, reasonable grounds existed to believe an offence was committed and that evidence would be found at the residence.

While a thin basis for believing an offence was committed was found, the court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe evidence of the offence would be found at the residence.

This was primarily due to the lack of a direct connection between the firearm and the residence, the fact that the accused was not in possession of the firearm upon arrest, and the extensive misleading information in the original ITO undermining the affiant's credibility.

The search was deemed unreasonable, constituting a s.8 Charter breach.

The s.24(2) Charter analysis regarding the admissibility of seized evidence was deferred.