Dante D. Gatti

The applicants sought to rectify the title of the respondents' property to reinstate an easement that provided the only access to their landlocked parcel.

The Land Registry Office had inadvertently deleted the easement from the servient tenement's parcel register in 2005.

The Deputy Director of Titles had previously ordered the easement deleted.

The Superior Court, hearing the matter as a new trial under section 26 of the Land Titles Act, found that the easement was deleted in error and could not be extinguished without an express release.

The court ordered the register rectified to reinstate the easement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant, Luis Chibante, to answer refusals given during his examination for discovery.

The refusals concerned the use of funds borrowed from Mastronardi Produce and Luis Chibante's business ventures with individuals associated with Mastronardi Produce.

The court, applying principles of discovery scope and proportionality, ordered the defendant to provide a solicitor's trust statement confirming legal fees paid from the borrowed funds and to answer specific questions about his business interests with Mastronardi Produce associates, subject to confidentiality controls.

The plaintiff, Front Construction Industries Inc., brought an action against the defendant, 38-44 Chatham Street East (2012) Limited (the "Owner"), for payment of an unpaid holdback and two claims for extras related to a construction project.

The Owner counterclaimed for significant delay damages, alleging Front Construction's failure to diligently perform work caused a loss of a long-term leasing opportunity.

The court found in favour of Front Construction, allowing its claims for the unpaid holdback and both extras, and dismissed the Owner's counterclaim for delay, concluding that Front Construction was not responsible for the alleged delay or the tenant's failure to occupy the premises.

Luis Chibante brought a motion to strike three paragraphs from Lynne Chibante's statement of claim, alleging abuse of process, prejudice, delay, and no reasonable cause of action.

The paragraphs concerned allegations of wrongdoing related to Golden Fresh in Ohio and accessing private emails, which were deemed outside the scope of the agreed-upon trial of issues concerning Golden Acre in Ontario.

The court granted the motion, finding the paragraphs scandalous, vexatious, irrelevant, and likely to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action.

BDO Canada Limited, the court-appointed receiver of Delta Logistics Transportation Inc., moved for an order requiring 2337764 Ontario Inc. to deliver possession of seven trucks over which 233 asserted a possessory lien under the Repair & Storage Liens Act (RSLA).

The receiver sought to take possession and sell the trucks for the benefit of creditors, arguing its powers derived from the broad court appointment order under the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (BIA). 2337764 Ontario Inc. contended that the court lacked jurisdiction, asserting its possessory lien rights and arguing that the matter should proceed under the RSLA's dispute resolution provisions.

The court distinguished the powers of a court-appointed receiver from those of a trustee in bankruptcy, emphasizing the receiver's fiduciary duty to all stakeholders and the supremacy of the court order.

The motion was granted, requiring 2337764 Ontario Inc. to deliver the vehicles to the receiver, with the lien claim to be determined later from the sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding undertakings and refusals.

The court denied the motion, noting that the moving party failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure by not filing a motion record, factum, or book of authorities.

Furthermore, the court found no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's determination of the relevant time period for document production.

The appellants appealed a trial decision fixing the fair value of the respondents' shares in a hotel business following the exercise of dissent rights under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's valuation of the hotel itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the cross-appeal, finding no error in the hotel valuation.

However, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the only expert evidence on share valuation and substituting her own unsupported asset-based calculation.

The Court varied the judgment to impose the en bloc share value of $1,240,500 established by the appellants' expert.

Minority shareholders sought relief under the oppression remedy and dissent and appraisal provisions of the Business Corporations Act after a majority shareholder attempted to restructure the corporation by reducing common shares and issuing scrip certificates that would effectively eliminate the minority’s interests.

The court determined the fair value of the dissenting shareholders’ shares as of the valuation date and rejected a proposed defence of laches, holding that the Limitations Act, 2002 applies to oppression claims and that laches does not apply where the claim is brought within the statutory limitation period.

While some alleged acts of misconduct, including removal of a director and management fees, were not oppressive, the proposed share restructuring scheme was found to be oppressive because its real purpose was to squeeze out the minority shareholders without fair compensation.

The court fixed the fair value of the shares based on a hotel valuation and awarded limited damages for oppression given that the dissent remedy already compensated the shareholders.