Cherif Saleh

The applicant auto dealership sought a declaration that it was the rightful owner of numerous classic vehicles that were allegedly stolen by a fraudster and sold to innocent purchasers.

The respondent purchasers argued they acquired good title under the Sale of Goods Act and Factors Act, and relied on vehicle permits issued by Service Ontario.

The court held that a vehicle permit under the Highway Traffic Act does not confer legal ownership superior to a prior valid title.

However, finding that material facts remained in dispute regarding whether the fraudster acted as a mercantile agent for the dealership, the court ordered a trial of an issue to hear viva voce evidence on the relationship between the parties.

The plaintiff, Pattison Outdoor Advertising Ltd., sought reimbursement of $45,332 plus HST from the defendants, Winchester Real Estate Investment Trust Limited and 1096966 Ontario Ltd., alleging payments were made under a mistake of fact for billboards removed from the Simcoe Property in 2003.

The defendants contended they were entitled to the payments under a valid and unteminated lease.

The court found no bad faith on the part of the defendants, interpreted the lease as granting an exclusive right to erect signage for a fixed rent, and concluded that the defendants had a legal right to receive the payments as the lease was never formally terminated by the plaintiff.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant invested in three commercial properties structured as trust arrangements with the respondents.

Following an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into the respondents for trading unregistered securities, the respondents were ordered to rectify deficiencies.

The respondents unilaterally terminated the applicant's investment agreements and purported to divest his units using a formula that did not provide fair market value, claiming this returned him to his pre-investment position.

The applicant sought relief for breach of contract and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the respondents breached the agreements and acted oppressively by unfairly prejudicing the applicant's interests.

The court ordered the respondents to pay fair market value for the units as of the date the applicant stopped making payments, and established a valuation process.