Bruce Neil Baron

This decision on a reference determined the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of a jointly purchased property between two cousins, Seyed (plaintiff) and Peiman (defendant).

Seyed sought an equal split, while Peiman claimed a larger share based on alleged lost opportunity costs, small claims court action costs, property management fees, general contractor fees, and a payment differential.

The court found that Seyed was not contractually obligated to obtain a mortgage and denied Peiman's claims for lost opportunity costs, property management fees, and late payment interest.

It partially allowed general contractor fees and allowed small claims court costs to be shared.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Seyed had not underpaid his required contribution.

The defendant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the plaintiff employee damages for wrongful dismissal, mental distress, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court upheld the wrongful dismissal damages, finding no error in the motion judge's calculation of the notice period.

However, the court set aside the $7,500 award for mental distress, finding that the employer acted in good faith and there was insufficient evidence of compensable mental distress.

The court also allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs from $35,000 to $10,000, noting the motion judge failed to properly consider proportionality and the unreasonableness of the plaintiff's bill of costs.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The defendant argued for proportionality and costs on the Small Claims Court scale, asserting the plaintiff did not achieve a more favourable result than their settlement offers.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding that the plaintiff's judgment was indeed more favourable than their settlement offers.

The court also dismissed the proportionality argument, emphasizing that a just result is paramount and that the defendant's "hardball litigation" tactics contributed to the costs.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff employee brought a summary judgment motion seeking 24 months' common law notice following his without-cause termination.

The defendant employer sought summary judgment dismissing the action, arguing the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The plaintiff, an unskilled labourer, chose to retrain as a welder rather than apply for three comparable positions available at the employer's other locations.

The court found that the employer met its onus under the Michaels test to establish that comparable work was available and the plaintiff could have procured it.

The court held that the plaintiff's decision to retrain did not constitute reasonable mitigation in these circumstances, and his entitlement to damages ended when he chose not to pursue the available positions.

As the plaintiff had already received eight months' severance pay, the action was dismissed.

On appeal, the court concluded the appellant should have been successful at trial and awarded damages of $438,113 in addition to other relief.

The appellant had made a pre-trial Rule 49 offer to settle for $180,000.

The court determined the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, because a significant portion of the trial involved testing claims the appellant made which the trial judge found to be untrue, and many of those findings were undisturbed on appeal, the costs award was adjusted to reflect that the trial was not an unqualified success for the appellant.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims for a beneficial interest in the family home or equitable damages for services rendered to his mother, as well as the dismissal of his application to revoke his sister's power of attorney.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in allocating the burden of proof for unjust enrichment by requiring the appellant to prove a 'net benefit'.

Applying the correct framework from Kerr v. Baranow, the Court awarded the appellant $438,113 in equitable damages for domestic services.

The Court also admitted the trial judge's findings of undue influence as fresh evidence and revoked the sister's power of attorney.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment in the amount of $150,000 based on Minutes of Settlement, following the defendants' default on installment payments.

The court considered whether the consent to judgment constituted an unenforceable penalty clause or if relief from forfeiture was warranted for payments already made.

The court found the stipulated sum was not unconscionable given the negotiated nature of the settlement and the original claim amount.

Relief from forfeiture was denied as the bargain was not unconscionable and the defendants were dilatory in seeking relief.

The motion for judgment was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, a 72-year-old security guard, was terminated after 12 years of service.

The employer provided a letter stating employment would end in a few months but gave no firm date, and the plaintiff continued working for seven months before being abruptly fired without statutory entitlements.

The plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding new employment and brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found the initial notice was insufficient as it lacked a firm date and the employment continued beyond the 13-week regulatory period.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and additional damages for mental distress due to the employer's unfair conduct.

The defendant, Panolam Industries Ltd., brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Robert John Kuiack, to produce a further and better affidavit of documents, including relevant documents from a prior disability claim against Manulife.

The plaintiff had sued Panolam for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and Human Rights Code violations after his long-term disability benefits were terminated and his employment was deemed frustrated.

Panolam argued that the plaintiff's prior disability claim and associated medical evidence were relevant to defend against the current action, particularly regarding the plaintiff's health status and intent to return to work.

The court largely granted the defendant's motion, ordering the production of the Manulife disability claims file, settlement documents, pleadings, undertakings/refusals, and clinical notes and records from specific physicians up to the end of 2013.

Following a successful summary judgment motion awarding the plaintiff 20.8 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The defendant argued for $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the plaintiff’s non-compliant offer to settle as a relevant factor under Rule 57.01 but held that the defendant’s conduct did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court also rejected using counsel’s unreduced notional hourly rate to inflate the award.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

Following a prior trial decision and endorsement directing the parties to finalize draft orders expeditiously, counsel for the applicants forwarded draft orders to opposing counsel for approval as to form and content.

No response was received from counsel for the opposing party despite the court’s direction.

After reviewing the draft orders prepared by the applicants’ counsel, the court made a minor revision and signed both orders.

The signed orders were directed to be circulated to counsel together with the endorsement.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old machinist with 26 years of service, was terminated without cause due to restructuring.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 24 months' reasonable notice.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not using outplacement services and intending to retire.

The court found the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate and awarded 21 months' reasonable notice, reduced by a 1% contingency for the likelihood of finding future employment, resulting in a final notice period of 20.8 months.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old machinist with 26 years of service, was terminated without cause due to restructuring.

The employer provided working notice and severance pay equivalent to approximately four months.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 24 months of reasonable notice.

The employer argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not using outplacement services and intending to retire.

The court found the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate and awarded a reasonable notice period of 21 months, reduced to 20.8 months to account for a 1% contingency of finding comparable employment before the end of the notice period.

Following a trial decision dismissing a claim for a beneficial ownership interest in residential property, the unsuccessful claimant filed a notice of appeal and sought to prevent the release of sale proceeds pending appeal.

The moving party argued that an automatic stay applied under Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, requested an interim stay while seeking relief from the Court of Appeal.

The court rejected the argument that the order constituted a payment of money subject to an automatic stay, relying on appellate authority distinguishing the release of trust funds from a money judgment.

Nevertheless, the court granted a limited interim stay to permit the moving party to bring a stay motion before the Court of Appeal.

The interim stay was restricted to 50% of the sale proceeds and was conditional on the appeal motion being argued by a specified deadline.

The applicant son sought a declaration of beneficial ownership in his mother's residential property based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, claiming he made financial and physical contributions to the property over decades.

The court found significant credibility issues with all parties.

The court held that the son did not establish the elements of proprietary estoppel, as his evidence regarding his expectation of an interest in the property was inconsistent and any alleged promise was for an inheritance, not a present interest.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the son did not confer a net benefit on his mother, as the value of his rent-free accommodation far exceeded any financial contributions he made.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded due to the unreasonable conduct of all parties.

Following a family property dispute over a Toronto home, the court tried the remaining issues of whether the applicant son held a beneficial interest through constructive trust and whether he was entitled to damages for contributions to the property.

The court found pervasive credibility problems affecting all parties and held the evidentiary record did not permit the factual findings necessary to establish proprietary estoppel or unjust enrichment.

The applicant failed to prove any present promise of an interest in the property, detrimental reliance, unconscionability, or any net benefit conferred once long-term occupancy and unpaid market rent were considered.

The claim for damages also failed, and the net sale proceeds were ordered releasable to the respondents on their joint instructions.

Given the conduct of all parties, no costs were awarded.

In consolidated family property applications, the court addressed disputes over powers of attorney, alleged incapacity and undue influence, exclusive possession of a house, and competing trust and damages claims arising from an adult child’s alleged decades-long financial and labour contributions to the property.

The court held that the evidence did not establish incapacity under the Substitute Decisions Act, denied revocation of the attorney appointments, denied an order for passing of accounts, and dismissed claims to beneficial ownership and resulting trust.

Applying the injunction-style test for possession, the court granted the titled owners exclusive possession and leave for a writ of possession.

However, because material facts remained sharply disputed on unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and damages, those issues were directed to trial, with protective orders preserving the claimant’s ability to trace into sale proceeds or a replacement property.

In consolidated family property applications, the court addressed disputes over powers of attorney, alleged incapacity and undue influence, exclusive possession of a house, and competing trust and damages claims arising from an adult child’s alleged decades-long financial and labour contributions to the property.

The court held that the evidence did not establish incapacity under the Substitute Decisions Act, denied revocation of the attorney appointments, denied an order for passing of accounts, and dismissed claims to beneficial ownership and resulting trust.

Applying the injunction-style test for possession, the court granted the titled owners exclusive possession and leave for a writ of possession.

However, because material facts remained sharply disputed on unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and damages, those issues were directed to trial, with protective orders preserving the claimant’s ability to trace into sale proceeds or a replacement property.

Following a decision on cross-motions where the appellant was permitted to remain in her home provided she paid rent to the respondent, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had achieved divided success, as the appellant remained in the home and the respondent received rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

Following a motion regarding a residential tenancy and alleged fraud, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had been successful in obtaining what they sought, as the appellant was permitted to remain in the home while the respondent began receiving rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.