Christopher Carl Selby

The plaintiff parking operator sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant condominium corporation from evicting it from a parking facility.

The plaintiff relied on a 2024 lease renewal allegedly signed by the defendant's deceased board president.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, particularly given the statutory requirements for leasing condominium common elements.

The applicant purchased the assets of a media company from secured debenture holders pursuant to an Assets Purchase Agreement that expressly excluded employment contracts and related liabilities.

When the predecessor company's union brought an application before the OLRB under s. 69 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the applicant settled for unpaid wages and vacation pay owed to employees prior to the closing date and sought indemnification under the APA.

The court held that the settlement payments fell within the excluded liabilities under the APA and that the applicant was entitled to full indemnification of $58,000, comprising the settlement amount and legal fees.

The court further found that the applicant's public announcement of its acquisition did not constitute a breach of the APA's confidentiality clause and would not, in any event, entitle the respondents to set off the indemnification owed.

The applicants, who rent water heaters and HVAC equipment to consumers, brought an application for a declaration that they were entitled to the end-of-term lease payments when a customer exercised their right to an early buyout.

The respondent had previously purchased a 10-year stream of future payments under the lease agreements.

The court interpreted the assignment agreement and found that the respondent purchased the assigned payments, which explicitly included income derived from early buyouts.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant company sought an interim and interlocutory injunction to enforce a standstill agreement against its founder and largest shareholder, pending arbitration.

The respondent had issued a press release calling for the replacement of the board of directors, which the applicant argued breached the negative covenants in the agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of negative covenants, irreparable harm to the company's goodwill, and a balance of convenience favoring the applicant.

The anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed because the application had substantial merit and the public interest in enforcing commercial contracts outweighed the protection of the expression.

The plaintiffs (Securitas) brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), and a Norwich Order against the defendants, alleging fraud related to sham alarm system accounts.

The court dismissed the Mareva injunction against all defendants and the CPL against the Eagle Defendants, finding that Securitas had not established a strong prima facie case of fraud against the Eagle Defendants, nor sufficient evidence of assets or dissipation risk for the other defendants (Rahman and Philip).

However, the court granted a Norwich Order against Rahman and Philip for financial disclosure and, by consent, ordered the Eagle Defendants to provide similar financial information.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment motion that found the appellants liable for knowing assistance and knowing receipt in a fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by drawing unwarranted inferences of liability based largely on the mere rejection of the appellants' evidence, rather than requiring positive proof.

The motion judge also made speculative and stereotypical findings regarding the appellants' credibility and financial arrangements.

The Court held that the rejection of a witness's evidence does not amount to positive proof of the opposite proposition.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the case remitted to the Superior Court for trial.

The moving parties, representing U.S. class action claimants, sought leave to appeal a supervising judge's order in a CCAA proceeding.

The supervising judge had dismissed their motion seeking to be treated as unaffected creditors or to have an expedited adjudication of their claims prior to a creditor vote.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and did not raise issues of significance to the insolvency practice.

The Court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a CCAA supervising judge's discretionary decisions balancing stakeholder interests.

The plaintiffs, Quantum Dealer Financial Corporation and NextGear Capital Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Guillen Defendants (Claudia Guillen Aracely, Jasmin Ivonne Guillen, 2564523 Ontario Inc., and Garnette C. Williams) and sought default judgment against Toronto Fine Cars and Leasing Inc. and Diego Sebastian Diaz.

The plaintiffs alleged that Diego Diaz, controlling shareholder of Toronto Fine Cars, fraudulently dissipated assets from the dealership by selling financed vehicles and failing to remit proceeds.

They further alleged that the Guillen Defendants assisted in and knowingly received these fraudulently obtained funds, using a newspaper business (Compra Y Venta, operated by 256 Corp.) as a money laundering vehicle.

The court found the Guillen Defendants' explanations for financial transactions and marital breakdown narrative to be incredible and inconsistent, exhibiting "badges of fraud." The court granted default judgment against Diego Diaz and Toronto Fine Cars and summary judgment against the Guillen Defendants, finding them jointly and severally liable for the unremitted proceeds, NSF charges, contractual interest, and punitive damages, based on the doctrines of knowing assistance and knowing receipt.

The appellants, a group of telecommunications carriers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that increased the province-wide default price for attaching cables to electricity poles.

The appellants argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by conducting a policy review rather than holding a full hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was not statutorily required to hold a hearing under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and that the policy review process adopted by the Board was procedurally fair and entitled to deference.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The respondents were awarded costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a settlement agreement between the parties was valid and enforceable.

The appellant argued there was no agreement on essential terms and that enforcement would lead to injustice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant was represented by counsel when the terms were agreed to and that there were no material concerns.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

This is an appeal from a trial judge's decision to discharge a mortgage.

The appellant claimed a loan was secured by a mortgage on the respondent's home, which was later re-loaned but remained secured.

The trial judge, unable to determine witness credibility, relied on documentary evidence to find the mortgage had been repaid and effectively redeemed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the issue of redemption was properly before the court via counterclaim, that the appellant waived technical compliance by admitting repayment, and that the trial judge was entitled to rely on documentary evidence given credibility issues.

The plaintiff sought to discharge a $220,000 mortgage registered against his property, claiming the funds were never advanced by the defendant.

The defendant counterclaimed for possession, alleging the funds were advanced in cash to the plaintiff's relative in Iran and by paying off credit card debt.

The court found significant credibility issues with all witnesses but relied on documentary evidence showing the defendant received over $220,000 in transfers from Iran, which he acknowledged was sufficient to discharge the mortgage.

The court ordered the mortgage discharged, finding it was effectively redeemed when the defendant received those funds.

The moving parties, a group of telecommunications companies, brought a motion for directions seeking disclosure and production of internal documents and communications from the Ontario Energy Board to form the record for their challenge of a new Pole Attachment Charge.

The court applied the 'meaningful judicial review test' to determine the required contents of the record, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply.

The court concluded that the requested documents, including drafts, internal correspondence, and identities of report authors, were not necessary for a meaningful review of the moving parties' complaints regarding process, burden of proof, and ignored submissions.

The motion for disclosure and production was dismissed.

The applicant, a minority shareholder and employee, alleged constructive dismissal due to reduced compensation (loss of personal expense reimbursement via corporate cards) and corporate oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, seeking payment for lost benefits and an order for Metcom to purchase his shares.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the card privileges were an informal shareholder arrangement personal to the previous majority shareholder and the applicant, not an employee compensation entitlement, and were subject to the corporation's financial capacity.

Furthermore, the applicant's expectation for share repurchase lacked a legal basis, as there was no shareholders' agreement or other binding arrangement.

An employee appealed a judgment regarding vesting of stock options under an employment contract.

The application judge found that a sale of substantially all of the company's assets to Lexmark constituted a triggering event causing the employee's unvested options to vest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on all grounds, finding that the Option Plan was binding, the sale constituted a triggering event, the employee properly exercised the options, the employee reasonably did not mitigate by seeking employment with Lexmark, and the requirement to purchase options through a holding company was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The landlord, 7Marli Limited, sought costs following a partial summary judgment for unpaid rent against its tenant, Pet Valu Canada Inc. The landlord claimed $8,742.91, including a portion for pleadings, productions, and discoveries.

The tenant argued the claim was excessive and proposed $4,500, limited to the motion's costs.

The court agreed with the tenant, awarding $4,500, all inclusive, for the motion only, deferring other costs to the main cause.

The landlord, 7Marli Limited, brought a motion for partial summary judgment against its commercial tenant, Pet Valu Canada Inc., for unpaid rent after the tenant vacated the premises.

The tenant resisted, arguing that partial summary judgment was an inefficient use of judicial resources and inconsistent with Supreme Court of Canada guidance on summary judgment.

The court granted the partial summary judgment, affirming the landlord's right to sue for rent arrears while keeping the lease alive, without a duty to mitigate, and distinguishing the case from those where partial summary judgment is inappropriate.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their solicitor negligence action, arguing the trial judge failed to consider the solicitor's duty to warn about the consequences of signing a mortgage discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that at trial, the appellants claimed they never met the solicitor, and their counsel conceded the action would fail if the trial judge found they had indeed signed the documents.

Because the trial judge accepted the solicitor's evidence that the meeting occurred, the duty to warn was not a live issue.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence under Rule 57.03(2) for failing to pay a prior costs order of $22,000.

The defendant argued he was unable to pay the lump sum by the deadline but offered to make monthly payments.

The Master found that while the defendant had abused the court process by not raising his inability to pay earlier or making any voluntary payments, striking the defence was too harsh a remedy for a first-time non-compliance.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs order in monthly installments of $650, with the plaintiff awarded costs of the motion.