Benjamin Salsberg

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent breached a purchase agreement for three properties, leading to the forfeiture of a $400,000 deposit.

The agreement made time of the essence and specified strict notice requirements for waiving or satisfying conditions.

The respondent failed to provide timely written notice that conditions were not waived or satisfied, instead proposing an extension.

The court found that the proposed extension did not constitute proper notice and that the vendors did not breach their duty of good faith by not responding to the extension offer.

Consequently, the conditions were deemed satisfied, the respondent was in default, and the deposit was forfeited to the applicants.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for alleged breaches of an oral retainer/employment agreement, fiduciary duties, and confidentiality.

The court found serious issues to be tried regarding whether Mr. Macklin and his company breached their agreement, owed fiduciary duties as a "de facto general manager" and took confidential property.

The balance of convenience plainly favoured the plaintiff, as the potential harm to its business was deemed irreparable and difficult to quantify, while the defendants' inconvenience was less significant.

An interim injunction was granted, prohibiting the defendants from accepting business from specific entities related to the plaintiff's flower transport business until a further interlocutory motion hearing.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission sought judicial review of an ORC Panel decision that reduced the penalties of four horse trainers whose horses tested positive for a controlled substance.

The trainers had been found guilty of an absolute liability offence but the Panel reduced their penalties to a nominal fine and no suspension, finding they had exercised due diligence by consulting veterinarians and following their advice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Panel's decision to consider due diligence as a mitigating factor at the penalty stage was reasonable and entitled to deference.

Following a six‑day trial in which the plaintiffs successfully recovered unpaid legal fees and defeated a counterclaim alleging solicitor’s negligence, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had obtained judgment for $90,454.81 and dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim seeking over $428,000.

The court considered the discretionary framework under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the effect of a prior Rule 49 offer to settle for $60,000.

Finding the plaintiffs were entirely successful and that their settlement offer was more favourable than the ultimate result, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed in all‑inclusive amounts for both the main action and the counterclaim.

The defendant sought an order fixing the quantum of security for costs after the court had already determined entitlement to security under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court had previously found the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity and that the action against the defendant had little chance of success, including a finding that there was good reason to believe the claim was frivolous and vexatious.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant’s claimed costs were excessive and accepted that the prolonged and evolving litigation justified significant defence costs.

The court ordered substantial security for costs and stayed the action pending payment.

The plaintiff lawyer and his professional corporation sued a former client for unpaid legal fees.

The client counterclaimed for solicitor's negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to collect settlement funds and mishandled an ex parte Mareva injunction, forcing an improvident settlement.

The court found the lawyer's services were necessary, beneficial, and in accordance with instructions, though it slightly reduced the accounts for excessive time.

The counterclaim was dismissed, as the court found no breach of the standard of care and concluded the client's settlement decision was based on damaging evidence from a co-party, not the lawyer's actions.

The moving party sought summary judgment for repayment of $650,000 advanced under a joint venture agreement for the purchase and resale of motor vehicles.

The responding party argued the agreement was ambiguous and did not expressly guarantee repayment of the capital investment, asserting that contractual interpretation required a trial.

Applying the summary judgment framework and principles of contractual interpretation, the court found the agreement clearly required that the initial capital investment not be used to absorb losses and be returned upon termination of the venture.

Considering both the contractual language and surrounding circumstances, including collateral mortgages granted as security, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted for the return of the $650,000 investment.

On a preliminary motion common to four security for costs motions, the responding plaintiffs asserted impecuniosity.

The court held that impecuniosity requires full and frank financial disclosure, and that a corporate plaintiff bears the added burden of proving it cannot raise funds from shareholders or associates.

The evidence tendered by both the corporate plaintiff and the estate trustee plaintiff was vague, incomplete, and insufficiently documented, with major gaps concerning assets, liabilities, bank accounts, tax filings, shareholder loans, and the estate's financial position.

The court found neither plaintiff had established legal impecuniosity and directed the matter to proceed to further scheduling, with costs to be addressed if necessary.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit regarding their alleged impecuniosity, which was served six months after the deadline set by a court-ordered timetable.

The court denied leave, finding that plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide a reasonable, good faith explanation for the delay and had ignored the court's explicit direction to research the evidentiary requirements for impecuniosity before drafting the initial materials.

The defendants were charged with creating an unauthorized security interest in a credit union contrary to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

They brought a motion to quash the Information, arguing it was laid outside the two-year statutory limitation period.

The court found that the regulatory agency had knowledge of the material facts more than three years before the charge was laid, and that the failure to share this information with the Superintendent in a timely manner frustrated the limitation period.

The motion was granted, the Information was quashed, and the charges were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking interim dependent’s support from the estate under the Succession Law Reform Act while pursuing claims for constructive or resulting trust over estate property.

The estate trustees sought directions regarding the possible sale of a farm property where the plaintiff resided.

The court held that interim support requires evidence that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the dependent under s. 58 of the Succession Law Reform Act, and found the plaintiff provided no evidence addressing the adequacy of a $150,000 bequest.

The claim for general interim support was therefore dismissed.

However, the court ordered the estate to reimburse and fund reasonable property maintenance expenses for estate properties occupied by the plaintiff pending trial.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an interim settlement with the judgment debtor and related parties concerning disputed ownership and realization of a cottage property during receivership proceedings.

The moving party, a judgment creditor, opposed the settlement, arguing that stronger litigation prospects justified pursuing a declaration that the debtor solely owned the property.

The court applied the principle that courts generally defer to a receiver’s commercially reasonable business judgment where the receiver has fully analyzed the circumstances and considered stakeholder interests.

Considering litigation risk, potential appeals, mounting receivership costs, lack of estate funding, and the need for timely recovery for creditors, the court found the settlement commercially reasonable.

The settlement was therefore approved.

In receivership proceedings brought in aid of execution against a judgment debtor, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed receiver for directions regarding enforcement steps and the disposition of certain assets.

The receiver sought approval to sell the debtor’s interest in a jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act, clarification regarding ownership of a cottage property, compliance with outstanding information requests, and approval of the receiver’s reports.

The court held that the spouse opposing sale failed to demonstrate circumstances of oppression, malice, or vexatious intent that would justify refusing the statutory right to partition or sale.

The court ordered the sale of the debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home, directed the parties to provide requested information to the receiver, scheduled a hearing regarding ownership of the cottage and related indebtedness issues, and approved the receiver’s reports.

Following reasons granting the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution over a judgment debtor’s assets, the court determined costs of the motion.

The moving party sought full indemnity costs against the debtor and another respondent.

The court held that elevated costs were justified against the debtor because his conduct—including obstructing enforcement of the judgment, withholding financial information, colluding with others, and using corporate structures to avoid payment—constituted reprehensible behaviour aimed at frustrating enforcement.

However, no costs were ordered against another respondent who had not opposed the receivership application and whose asserted security interest remained to be determined.

Substantial indemnity costs of $53,126.62 were awarded against the judgment debtor.

The judgment creditor sought the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution over the debtor’s assets after the debtor failed to pay a substantial judgment arising from a settlement agreement.

The court found extensive evidence that the debtor had structured his financial affairs through closely‑held corporations and family arrangements to obstruct enforcement, including placing mortgages on assets, refusing to produce financial records, and channeling benefits through corporations while claiming little personal income.

The court also found troubling evidence suggesting that the debtor’s spouse participated in attempts to create secured claims and judgments designed to defeat other creditors.

Given the debtor’s obstruction of examinations, failure to comply with garnishment obligations, and complex corporate arrangements shielding assets, the court held that ordinary enforcement mechanisms would be ineffective.

A receiver in aid of execution was therefore appointed with investigative powers to examine the debtor’s interests and financial dealings.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that a bald assertion of agency in the statement of defence was insufficient to raise a meritorious defence.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondents.

Following a four-day family law trial involving divorce, the validity of a marriage contract, equalization, and spousal support, the court addressed costs.

The respondent had succeeded in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining both equalization and spousal support, though she failed on claims for damages and to set aside a conveyance of property to the applicant’s sons.

The court rejected both parties’ submissions that substantial indemnity costs were warranted, finding neither the alleged disclosure issues nor purported fraud allegations justified such an award.

Applying partial indemnity principles and considering the respondent’s greater success on the major issues, the court fixed costs in her favour but reduced them to reflect partial success.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife claimed equalization, spousal support, tort damages, and the setting aside of their marriage contract.

The court set aside the marriage contract, finding the wife did not understand its nature or consequences and lacked meaningful independent legal advice.

The court dismissed the wife's claim that the husband's sons held the matrimonial home in trust for him, finding a valid gift was made.

The husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $20,373.67 and ongoing spousal support of $200 per month, along with retroactive arrears.

The wife's claim for tort damages was dismissed.

The court considered a motion to approve a debtor proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act after creditor approval.

It held the proposal terms were not reasonable because key records were not produced, the trustee could not provide an opinion on exclusion provisions, and the proposed structure risked prejudice to creditor recovery rights.

The court also found statutory grounds requiring security were proved and concluded the offered funding did not satisfy the required security threshold.

The motion to approve the proposal was dismissed to protect creditor interests and the integrity of the insolvency process.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for negligence and malicious prosecution against a security guard and other parties.

The action arose after the appellant was arrested based on the security guard's identification, though charges were later withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to plead necessary facts or establish a causal connection between the security guard's actions and the arrest, which was an independent police decision.

The appeal was dismissed.