Chris Argiropoulos

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 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.

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 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 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.