Chris Argiropoulos

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a Deputy Judge.

The responding party requested that the moving party be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and declined to declare the moving party a vexatious litigant due to a lack of supporting submissions.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The court considered an application by Frank Iannace to set aside his late father's will, which disinherited him in favour of his brother, Peter Iannace.

Frank alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding undue influence, and granted certificates of pending litigation (CPL) and preservation orders over certain estate assets, but not over a property owned by a corporation.

The court also ordered disclosure and partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Fady Dawood, brought a motion for summary judgment against Popes Property Holdings Inc. (PPH) and Nicholas John Pope, alleging breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The defendants agreed the matter should be resolved by summary judgment and did not oppose judgment against PPH, but Pope sought reverse summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him personally.

The court found PPH liable for the plaintiff’s losses but dismissed the action against Pope, holding that PPH had properly adopted the contract after incorporation and that there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil or impose personal liability on Pope.

The appellant, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp., was defrauded in a factoring business scheme by WF Canada Ltd.'s principals.

Liquid Capital sued Frank Zito, an Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. employee, alleging his participation in the fraud, and sought to hold Enbridge vicariously liable.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding Liquid Capital had not proven Zito's involvement and, even if he was involved, Enbridge would not be vicariously liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no reversible error in refusing to find Zito liable and no error in the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal costs was denied.

The court-appointed Receiver of The Lion's Share Group Inc. (LS), a real estate investment company in insolvency, sought an order declaring certain promissory notes as valid charges on real property, requiring their registration, and expanding the receivership to include The Windrose Group Inc. The promissory notes, issued by LS to borrowers, included provisions for registration on title upon default, but the Land Registry Office required a court order.

Objecting noteholders requested an adjournment due to short service.

The court granted the Receiver's requests, finding the notes created equitable mortgages and that the matter was urgent due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The court also approved the expansion of the receivership and the Receiver's First Report, while providing a comeback hearing for affected parties to address any prejudice.

The appellant sought to purchase a residential property under an Option to Purchase Agreement or, alternatively, the return of a $25,000 downpayment.

She appealed the dismissal of her application by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Option Agreement had clearly expired by its terms, the appellant failed to establish a causal link between the respondent's alleged failure to provide rent receipts and her inability to secure mortgage financing, and the application judge did not err in declining to convert the application into an action.

The plaintiff, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp., sought damages for fraud against multiple defendants, including two individuals (Cook and Daoust) who created false invoices, and an Enbridge employee (Zito) and Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., alleging their involvement or vicarious liability.

The court found that Liquid Capital failed to prove Mr. Zito's participation in the fraud on a balance of probabilities, noting the plaintiff's significant lack of due diligence due to an misplaced trust in one of the fraudsters.

The court also determined that even if Mr. Zito had been involved, Enbridge would not be vicariously liable as Mr. Zito acted outside the scope of his employment and lacked the authority to approve such contracts or invoices.

The action against the defendants was dismissed.

The applicant sought to enforce an option to purchase agreement for a property or, alternatively, the return of a $25,000 down payment.

The respondent argued the option expired and the payment was forfeited.

The court found the option agreement had expired and was not renewed, and the respondent's failure to provide compliant rent receipts was not causally linked to the applicant's inability to secure financing.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture for the $12,000 in monthly credits, finding it unconscionable for the respondent to retain this amount given it exceeded the contract's cap, but allowed the respondent to retain the initial $13,000 option fee.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Krawchenko J. dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, 1350057 Ontario Ltd.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate defendant and its principal for defaulting on a small business loan and personal guarantee.

The defendants argued they did not receive independent legal advice and that the COVID-19 pandemic frustrated the contract, as their restaurant was forced to close.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no requirement for independent legal advice and holding that the pandemic did not render the repayment obligations radically different from what was originally agreed.

The defendants were convicted of 69 counts under the Employer Health Tax Act and 62 counts under the Retail Sales Tax Act, involving the failure to remit over $1,675,000 in taxes.

The sentencing decision addresses a sophisticated, multi-year tax evasion scheme involving the operation of multiple related corporations and the deliberate mischaracterization of employment relationships.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 21 months imprisonment, substantial fines totaling approximately $9.9 million, and probation, finding that the offences constituted fraudulent conduct warranting incarceration despite the defendant's lack of prior criminal record.

This is a comprehensive tax evasion prosecution involving Le Jardin Banquet and Conference Centre Inc. and its director Carlo Parentela.

The defendants operated a banquet hall in Woodbridge, Ontario and were charged with 131 offences under the Retail Sales Tax Act and Employer Health Tax Act, including wilfully evading tax, making false statements in returns, failing to remit collected taxes, failing to collect taxes, failing to file returns, operating without a vendor permit, and wilfully failing to register as a vendor.

The Crown's investigation revealed that the defendants concealed true sales revenue through restricted access to the Sales Logix software system, withheld cash sales information from their bookkeeper and accountants, and systematically underreported tax obligations.

The defendants were found guilty on all counts after a lengthy trial spanning multiple years.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call to set procedural directions and hearing dates for appeals of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding the unauthorized storage of hazardous waste materials at a site in Hamilton.

The Tribunal ordered a schedule for the exchange of witness statements and documents, and set hearing dates for December 2015 and March 2016.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to secure and remediate a site containing hazardous waste.

During a telephone conference call, the Royal Bank of Canada requested to be removed as a party, which was granted on consent.

The parties also requested an adjournment of the preliminary hearing to continue mediation, which the Tribunal granted.

A judgment creditor brought a garnishment motion alleging that the garnishee and its principal knowingly contravened notices of garnishment by continuing to pay salary to a judgment debtor while falsely stating no employment relationship existed.

Evidence showed the garnishee entities continued paying the debtor for management services despite service of garnishment notices and filed inaccurate garnishee statements.

The court found the payments constituted wages subject to garnishment and that the garnishee ought to have remitted the statutory portion to the sheriff.

Given the deliberate misrepresentations and the integrated business structure, the court pierced the corporate veil to impose personal liability on the principal.

Judgment was granted for the garnishable portion of the wages together with interest and substantial indemnity costs.

Following a successful breach of contract action and defence of a counterclaim, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The court considered the outcome of the litigation, the length of the trial, the issues involved, and the amounts at stake.

Finding the plaintiffs entirely successful, the court held that they were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court determined that $20,000 represented a reasonable amount that would have been contemplated for the proceeding.

The defendants were ordered to pay that amount.

Following a trial decision, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought $74,612.14 all-inclusive, relying in part on an offer to settle that triggered substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

One defendant conceded the entitlement to substantial indemnity costs from that date, while another provided no submissions on costs and a corporate defendant did not participate in the trial.

The court considered the conduct of the participating defendants, including late concessions that prolonged the trial and required unnecessary witnesses.

Balancing the relevant considerations, the court fixed the plaintiff’s costs at $65,000 all-inclusive against the individual defendants.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract arising from the sale of a dry cleaning business, alleging the defendants failed to pay the full purchase price.

Although the written agreement stated a purchase price of $300,000, the court accepted evidence of an oral agreement establishing a true purchase price of $360,000.

After crediting payments already made, the court found that $49,000 of the purchase price remained unpaid along with additional contractual payments for continued use of the business name.

The defendants’ counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation regarding the condition of a boiler was dismissed, as the written agreement contained no warranties as to condition and the defendants had the opportunity to inspect the equipment.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiffs for $49,240.66 plus pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought recovery of remediation costs paid to repair structural defects in a newly constructed home after the builder failed to fulfill warranty obligations.

The corporate builder and its principals had executed indemnification agreements requiring reimbursement of losses arising from warranty claims.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the indemnity cap for the individual defendants was $20,000 rather than $200,000.

The court held that limitation periods for indemnity claims run from the date the indemnifier actually pays out losses, not from when the underlying defect arises.

The action was therefore timely because the payments occurred in 2006 within two years of the claim issued in 2007.

The court further held the contract imposed an aggregate $200,000 indemnity cap for the individual defendants, not a per‑home limit.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors following multiple defaults on a mortgage and fire insurance policy.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's acceptance of a partial payment 'without prejudice' remade the agreement, requiring the plaintiff to restart the collection process, and counterclaimed that the plaintiff dissuaded a donor from paying off the mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no direct evidence to support the counterclaim and concluding that the partial payment was merely on account, not a remaking of the agreement.

The court also rejected the argument that the action was barred by section 42(1) of the Mortgages Act.