Christopher D. Salazar

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's decision dismissing his action to set aside minutes of settlement dated July 18, 2017, relating to an estate dispute.

The minutes permitted the respondent to purchase an estate property in Coldwater, Ontario for $290,000, with the appellant to receive this amount from remaining estate assets following probate.

The respondent moved into the property but probate remained incomplete eight years later.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent's failure to provide a detailed list of estate chattels did not constitute repudiation of the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and holding that both parties were jointly responsible for the delay in probate.

The appellant, a former client of the respondent lawyer, posted unflattering comments about him on an online platform.

The respondent sued for defamation and other torts.

The appellant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the action, arguing her comments were a matter of public interest and that the action was statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the comments related to a private dispute and did not constitute a broadcast.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the contextual inquiry showed no public aspect to the communication and that the appellant failed to prove the platform was a broadcast.

The moving party, Joanne Vaughan, sought a panel review of an endorsement by a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which had granted her an extension of time to perfect her appeal.

She requested amendments to the endorsement, including attributing delay in finalizing a lower court order to the responding party, requiring a Notice of Change in Representation, and setting a new appeal perfection deadline contingent on the resolution of two other motions in the court below.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for review, finding no basis to intervene as the original motion judge had not misapprehended evidence or erred in principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a contempt order and a costs order issued in an estate proceeding.

The appellant, an alternate executor and beneficiary, had been found in contempt for failing to comply with an order to grant access to an estate property and produce documents to the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The motion judge had ordered an earlier vacation date for the property and awarded $18,000 in costs against the appellant.

The appellate court found no error in the contempt finding, the substituted service order, or the costs award, noting the appeal was largely moot as the property had been sold.

Ms. Sokil sought a stay of an order that accelerated the enforcement date of a writ of possession, leading to her eviction from an Estate property.

Her motion to stay the order pending appeal was dismissed by the motion judge.

Ms. Sokil was subsequently removed from the property, rendering her panel review motion before the Court of Appeal moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it served no purpose.

The Plaintiffs sought costs after the Defendants abandoned a motion they had brought seeking various reliefs, including an injunction and declarations regarding a mortgage loan.

The court found that the Defendants' motion was deemed abandoned under Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, entitling the Plaintiffs to costs forthwith.

The court rejected the Defendants' argument that these were "interim costs" or should be "costs in the cause" distinguishing them from the extraordinary circumstances for interim costs.

While the Defendants' abandoned motion included a request for a declaration that could have disposed of the entire action (akin to a summary judgment), the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06, finding that the Defendants did not act unreasonably or in bad faith in bringing or abandoning the motion, as they were genuinely attempting to secure alternative financing.

The Plaintiffs were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

This judgment addresses two consolidated applications: one by Elizabeth Dobis, Estate Trustee, seeking damages and costs from Mark Dobis for misappropriated estate funds, and another by Mark Dobis to pass accounts.

The court found that Mark Dobis had misappropriated funds and ordered him to pay $20,932.24 in damages to the Estate.

The court denied Mark Dobis's request for set-off against potential future claims for dependent's support or unjust enrichment, citing lack of equitable grounds and unliquidated claims.

Mark Dobis's accounts were passed, with the objection resolved by the damages award.

Elizabeth Dobis was also awarded costs totaling $17,100 for her application and $2,100 for a contempt motion that prompted Mark Dobis to comply with a prior order to pass accounts.

The moving party sought a stay of an order finding her in contempt and requiring her to vacate an estate property by an accelerated date.

The motion judge had found the moving party in contempt for failing to cooperate with the Estate Trustee During Litigation and denying access to the property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no arguable merit to the appeal, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Estate Trustee.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party did not file any materials.

The plaintiff developer built stacked townhouses and applied for a condominium exemption under the Condominium Act to bypass Planning Act requirements.

The City granted the exemption but imposed a condition prohibiting the units from being used as boarding or rooming houses.

The developer sued, arguing the City lacked authority to impose conditions and challenging barrier-free accessibility requirements.

The motion judge struck the condition but upheld the accessibility requirements.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the City had broad authority under the Condominium Act and Municipal Act to impose conditions on exemption approvals to protect health and safety.

The developer's cross-appeal regarding accessibility requirements was dismissed as moot.

The appellant applied for relief to enforce a promissory note assigned to him by a corporation.

The application judge dismissed the application on a without-prejudice basis, finding the appellant had not proven the validity of the assignment, but stated she would remain seized if further proceedings were brought.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the application judge erred in principle by putting the parties to the expense of a new proceeding.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, the judge should have directed the trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant brought an application in Barrie seeking a declaration that a property transfer between the respondent husband and wife in Port Dover was a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondents argued the application was brought in the wrong jurisdiction and should proceed as an action.

The court stayed the proceeding, finding that under Rule 13.1.01(3) the matter relates to a mortgage and must be heard in the Central South Region where the property is located.

The court also directed that the application be converted to an action, as the subjective intent of the parties in transferring the property is a material fact in dispute requiring credibility determinations.

The defendants successfully defended motions for summary judgment brought by the plaintiffs and a co-defendant concerning an aborted real estate transaction.

In determining costs, the court criticized the defendants' disorganized, inefficient, and unnecessarily lengthy approach to the motions, which included filing duplicative materials and excessive authorities.

The defendants sought over $108,000 on a full indemnity basis, which the court found astonishing and unsupported by dockets or settlement offers.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $20,000 all-inclusive, payable $14,000 by the plaintiffs and $6,000 by the co-defendant.

The plaintiffs (sellers) and defendants by counterclaim (real estate agents) brought motions for summary judgment regarding an aborted real estate transaction.

The buyers had refused to close after discovering the lot depth was 23% smaller than advertised, claiming they intended to demolish the house and build a larger one.

The sellers argued this intention was fabricated and the mistake did not go to the root of the contract.

The court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, finding that assessing the credibility of the buyer's stated intention required a trial.

Following a summary judgment motion with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The defendants sought $21,377.86, reflecting a 50% reduction for divided success, while the plaintiff sought $9,489.50, reflecting a 20% reduction.

The court found the plaintiff was the more successful party, having successfully resisted the dismissal of its entire action and established bad faith by the defendants on one issue.

The court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in costs, all inclusive.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation obtained ex parte by the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including that the original Agreement of Purchase and Sale had lapsed, that the defendant had not initialed key changes, and that the defendant's lawyer had explicitly denied the existence of a binding agreement.

The court concluded that the material non-disclosure alone warranted discharging the certificate, and further found that the evidence did not establish the plaintiff had an interest in the land.

The motion was granted and the certificate was discharged.

The plaintiff, Unique Lighting & Control Corp., sued Green Services Canada Ltd. and its officers, John Green and Patricia Green, for unpaid lighting supplies.

The individual defendants (John and Patricia Green) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them, arguing no basis for personal liability.

Unique Lighting, the responding party, also sought summary judgment against Green Services and John Green.

The court dismissed the claims against John Green and Patricia Green, finding no grounds to pierce the corporate veil, establish a breach of trust, or prove unjust enrichment.

However, summary judgment was granted in favour of Unique Lighting against Green Services for the outstanding debt of $51,239.00, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed results.

Elizabeth Dobis, as executrix and sole beneficiary of her late husband's estate, sought possession and control of a rental property and an accounting from her son, Mark Dobis, who had been managing the property and diverting rents.

Mark Dobis opposed, claiming a life interest based on an invalid "Devise" and a moral obligation.

The court granted Elizabeth Dobis possession and control, ordered Mark Dobis to account for and remit diverted funds, and issued permanent injunctive relief against his interference, finding he had no legal or equitable claim to the property.

Mark Dobis brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain Elizabeth Dobis, personally and as Estate Trustee, from dealing with a property at 88 Overton Crescent, and for an order granting leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the property.

Mark Dobis claimed a life interest in the property and sought dependant's support from his late father's estate.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctions and the prerequisites for a CPL.

The court found that Mark Dobis did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding his dependant status or a reasonable claim to an interest in the property, nor would he suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured Elizabeth Dobis.

Both the motion for injunction and the CPL were dismissed.

The defendants, the City of Orillia and two officials, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Balmoral Developments Hilda Inc.'s action.

Balmoral also sought summary judgment in its favour on specific issues.

The case involved two main disputes: (1) whether By-Law 2014-75, which imposed conditions on Balmoral's condominium exemption application, was lawfully enacted; and (2) whether the barrier-free accessibility requirements imposed by the City were lawfully imposed.

The court found that the City acted in bad faith by imposing unauthorized conditions on the exemption certificate, striking those conditions.

However, the court dismissed Balmoral's challenge to the barrier-free requirements, finding the issue moot and a collateral attack on a decision not appealed.

The matter of damages was reserved for a future trial or disposition.