Benjamin Salsberg

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages to his fence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his application of the law of nuisance by requiring proof of causation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly identified causation as a pre-requisite to a finding of nuisance and made no error of law in dismissing the claim after finding the cause of the damage was completely unknown.

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 complainant, a key employee with a heart condition, went on short-term disability due to adverse reactions to medication.

While on leave, the employer assumed he would not return to his position and hired permanent replacements without adequately inquiring into his medical prognosis or discussing accommodation options.

The Tribunal found the employer failed in its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the complainant's disability.

Furthermore, the employer's subsequent refusal to provide the complainant with corporate financial information regarding his shareholdings, motivated by anger over his human rights complaint, constituted an unlawful reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded $30,000 for injury to dignity and $124,000 for lost wages.

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.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which directed the Registrar to carry out a proposal to refuse and revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

The Tribunal had held that the Registrar had the onus to show he believed there were reasonable grounds for the proposal, and that the Tribunal owed deference to the Registrar's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending its role.

Under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the Tribunal is required to make its own assessment of the facts and has the explicit statutory authority to substitute its opinion for that of the Registrar, owing no deference to the Registrar's initial proposal.

The appellants appealed an order allowing a receiver to sell a property free of their leases.

The receiver conceded that the motion judge's statement of the law was overly broad and that equitable considerations should have been weighed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and remitted the matter back to the Superior Court of Justice, noting the appellants were not given a proper opportunity to lead evidence on the equities.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Justice Ground, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

The decision was based on the reasons provided in the companion endorsement in Court File C44279.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

The solicitor appealed from an order dismissing his motion to oppose the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report.

The Assessment Officer had disallowed the solicitor's claims for payment regarding 'extras'—opinions on matters handled by other solicitors—because there was no written retainer, no interim billing, and a historical relationship where the client was not billed for such consultations.

The Divisional Court found no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence by the Assessment Officer or the reviewing judge, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, alleging that the loan agreements charged a criminal rate of interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that more than $78,000 was advanced, meaning the illegal rate of interest was not proven.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's award of substantial indemnity costs, which were in accordance with the loan agreements.

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

At the hearing, all parties agreed that the appeal was moot, though they disagreed on when it became moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot and awarded costs of $1,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order that denied them costs despite being successful on a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The motions judge had denied costs on the basis that counsel intentionally underestimated the length of the motion to get on the list.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision as it extended previous case law by denying costs to successful parties who had not misled the judge hearing the motion.

The court also found that the appropriate use of cost sanctions for time misestimates is an issue of public importance.

The appellant appealed an order of the motion judge who declined to enforce a settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was ample evidence to support the motion judge's findings of fact and exercise of discretion.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that interpreted a share purchase agreement to include an unexpected income tax refund as an 'account receivable' and found them liable for a bankruptcy dividend distribution.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the agreement was unambiguous and did not contemplate the tax refund as an account receivable.

The Court also found that the bankruptcy dividend had been paid in full and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim for additional items.

The action was dismissed with costs.