Benjamin Salsberg

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they breached the procedural duty to accommodate the respondent employee's disability.

The applicants argued the employee had repudiated his employment contract, negating any duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal's conclusion that the employer failed to sufficiently inquire into the employee's medical condition was reasonable.

The Court also declined to dismiss the application for undue delay, accepting counsel's explanation of ill health.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant advanced funds to a corporation controlled by a fraudster.

The fraudster used the funds to purchase shares, which he and his spouse pledged to the respondent bank in exchange for an increased credit limit.

The appellant obtained a tracing order for the fraudulently obtained funds, excluding assets in the hands of bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the bank acquired a valid security interest under the Personal Property Security Act and qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, thereby defeating the appellant's equitable claim to the proceeds of the shares.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding a valid agreement to split settlement funds 50/50 with the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in finding a valid agreement, implying a reasonable term for the split, or rejecting the argument that the agreement was unenforceable for illegality due to an undertaking given to the insurer.

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an appeal book endorsement awarding costs to the respondent.

The respondent was awarded costs in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

A fraudster induced the respondent financing company to advance funds, which were used to purchase shares in an investment account.

The fraudster then pledged these shares to the appellant bank to secure a line of credit.

The respondent obtained a tracing order and claimed the funds based on unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant bank was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and had a valid security interest in the shares.

The appeal was allowed, and the funds were awarded to the appellant bank.

The appellants appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, arguing the motion judge erred in ordering a $725,000 payment in cash and seeking to rescind the agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge failed to consider evidence that the parties intended the sum to be paid via security, such as a promissory note or guarantee, rather than cash.

The judgment was amended accordingly, but the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the request to rescind the settlement agreement was rejected.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against the respondent solicitors.

The appellant had forwarded a bank draft to the solicitors for the purchase of shares in their client's company, but never received the shares.

He argued the solicitors owed him a duty of care to hold the funds in escrow.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that there was no proximity or reliance sufficient to establish a duty of care, as the appellant had no contact with the solicitors and they did not undertake to protect his interests.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict regarding an insurance claim for fire damage.

The jury had heard expert evidence from the respondent's electrical engineer that the building's permanent wiring was not the cause of the fire, and that the fire was likely caused by shoddy electrical wiring used for a marijuana grow operation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence upon which the jury could reasonably reach its verdict.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant against the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The respondent argued that the transcript costs should be disallowed because it had conceded the main legal issue.

The court rejected this argument, finding the facts remained central to the respondent's alternative position.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,733.86 plus GST.