Calvin Zhang

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.