Calvin Zhang

The appellant's property was destroyed by fire caused by tenants extracting marijuana resin, and his insurer denied coverage based on exclusion clauses.

After the loss, section 129.1 of the Insurance Act was enacted, limiting such exclusions for innocent persons.

The appellant sought to apply this new provision retroactively to his claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that section 129.1 does not apply retroactively to losses that occurred before its enactment.

The court distinguished between retrospective and retroactive application of legislation, emphasizing the strong presumption against retroactivity.

The defendant, Yin Liang, appealed an Associate Justice's order granting the plaintiff, Suevilia Development Corporation, leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Ms. Liang's husband, Hanyu Zhao, as a defendant and to plead claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance.

The appeal court reviewed the Associate Judge's decision on the applicable tests under Rule 26.01 and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including issues of non-compensable prejudice, limitation periods, and whether the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision regarding the limitation period or the tenability of the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment and notice of garnishment obtained by the plaintiff.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, provided a plausible explanation for the default due to improper service and lack of notification, and presented an arguable defence regarding defective products.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff's counsel failed to provide a courtesy copy of the claim or judgment to the defendant's retained counsel, and that the administration of justice favored a trial on the merits.

This decision addresses motions in three consolidated construction lien actions.

Sutton Forming Inc. sought a declaration on Homes by DeSantis (Lake) Inc.'s minimum holdback obligation under the Construction Lien Act and an order for payment from it.

The court clarified that the holdback is calculated based on the contract price for services actually supplied, not amounts paid, and rejected the owner's objections regarding certificate accuracy and set-off for deficiencies.

The court granted leave for the motion, declared the minimum holdback, and ordered specific payments to Sutton and its sub-subcontractors from the holdback.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence, alleging a failure to answer undertakings from earlier court orders regarding the production of financial statements, tax returns, and bank records.

The court found that the defendants had either answered or used best efforts to answer the undertakings, such as requesting documents from the CRA, accountants, and banks.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to the disproportionate expense incurred on the motion.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant purchaser failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendant's counsel of record requested an adjournment because the lawyer-client relationship had broken down, but the court refused, finding the request to be a delaying tactic.

As the defendant filed no responding materials, the court treated the matter akin to a default judgment and awarded the plaintiff $234,937.13 in damages, representing the difference in resale price and expenses less the forfeited deposit, plus costs.

The appellant, RE/MAX Realtron Realty Inc., appealed the dismissal of its claim for commission on a property sale.

The trial judge, in a mini-trial ordered during a summary judgment motion, found that two numbered companies involved in the transaction were distinct corporate entities, and the corporate veil could not be pierced.

Consequently, the holdover clause in the initial purchase agreement did not apply to the subsequent sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding corporate distinctness, the application of the corporate veil test, or the absence of wrongdoing.

The court also upheld the substantial costs award against the appellant, noting its rejection of settlement offers.

The appellant, 2460907 Ontario Inc., appealed an order striking its claim for pure economic loss against the respondent, 1521476 Ontario Inc. The claim arose from the respondent's re-entry of premises leased to a third party, 2456787 Ontario Inc., where the appellant intended to operate a restaurant.

The appellant claimed a possessory or proprietary interest in the premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant lacked such an interest because the respondent had not consented to an assignment of the lease.

Consequently, no duty of care could arise to support a claim for pure economic loss.

The court distinguished the case from relational economic loss precedents due to the absence of any direct relationship between the appellant and respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Lisa Snowball sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court order that had refused leave to appeal a Superior Court order.

The Regional Municipality of Halton moved to strike Snowball's motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, and Snowball brought a cross-motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in Snowball's motion for leave to appeal, reiterating that there is generally no appeal from an intermediate court's refusal of leave unless jurisdiction was mistakenly declined.

The fresh evidence did not alter the merits.

The Court granted Halton's motion to strike Snowball's motion for leave to appeal and denied Snowball's motion to adduce fresh evidence, awarding costs to Halton.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring him to post $20,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred in finding he was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and in concluding the order was just.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Master's factual conclusion regarding residency, including the plaintiff's limited time in Ontario, lack of assets, and intention to return to Malaysia.

The court also held the Master made no error of law, having properly balanced the plaintiff's access to justice against the defendants' need for protection from an uncollectible costs award.

The plaintiff insured sought coverage after his tenants caused an explosion and fire while attempting to extract marijuana resin.

The insurer denied coverage based on a marijuana exclusion clause.

The plaintiff argued that a subsequent amendment to the Insurance Act (s. 129.1) protecting innocent insureds should apply.

The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the marijuana exclusion clause applied irrespective of the amendment because it excluded a specific use of the property regardless of the insured's knowledge.

Furthermore, the court held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively as it would affect the insurer's vested contractual rights.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sought commission from the corporate defendants after an initial agreement of purchase and sale was terminated during the due diligence period, and a subsequent agreement was entered into by a different corporate entity.

The court held a mini-trial to determine the ownership of the corporations, the intentionality of terminating the first agreement, and the circumstances of the second agreement.

The court found that the two corporations were separate legal entities with different investors, the first agreement was terminated legitimately due to unsatisfactory due diligence, and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.