Claudio R. Aiello

The plaintiff, an Ontario wine agent, brought an action against the defendant, a New York-based wine distributor, for damages in lieu of reasonable notice following the unilateral termination of their 15-year unwritten agency relationship.

The defendant terminated the relationship without notice to consolidate its Canadian distribution with a single new agent.

The court found that the distributorship agreement was terminable only upon reasonable notice, rejecting the defendant's argument that no notice was required.

The court determined that a 15-month notice period was appropriate, considering the plaintiff's significant efforts in building the brand in Ontario, and awarded damages based on lost commissions and unpaid invoices.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to claim a $100,000 deposit after the defendant purchasers failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants had submitted an unconditional offer but failed to close due to financing issues, and subsequently attempted to cloud the title to prevent resale.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the deposit was a true deposit subject to forfeiture.

The court rejected the defendants' claim for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit amount proportionate and no unconscionability in the plaintiffs retaining it.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff moved to continue a Mareva injunction freezing assets allegedly connected to a multi‑million dollar international fraud scheme.

One defendant opposed continuation of the injunction, arguing material non‑disclosure, delay, lack of evidence connecting the defendants to the fraud, absence of risk of dissipation of assets, and insufficiency of the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages.

The court held that any alleged non‑disclosure regarding the plaintiff corporation’s status or its principal’s personal bankruptcy was not material and did not justify dissolving the injunction.

The court further found that the criteria for a Mareva injunction were met, including a strong prima facie case of fraud and a risk of dissipation of assets inferred from suspicious financial transfers.

The Mareva injunction was continued until trial or further order, subject to conditions requiring proof of the plaintiff corporation’s good standing and notice to the principal’s bankruptcy trustee.