Dara Shane Hirbod

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in an action for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The motion was supported solely by an affidavit from a law clerk containing hearsay and double hearsay evidence.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, holding that a plaintiff must prove damages with admissible evidence and that affidavits based on information and belief from law firm staff are insufficient for contentious matters or proving the contents of exhibits.

The appellant challenged an order striking the statement of claim as vexatious and abusive under procedural rules.

The court rejected all grounds, including complaints about evidentiary use and refusal of leave to amend, and upheld dismissal.

This is a class action alleging financial misrepresentations in the sale of the defendant's securities.

The class comprises persons or entities who acquired securities between March 30, 2011 and November 7, 2013.

The action was certified under the Class Proceedings Act in December 2018.

The parties reached a proposed settlement whereby the defendant will pay $6,800,000 without admitting liability to resolve all claims.

The court approved the notice plan for dissemination to class members and appointed Epiq Global as the settlement administrator.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

A motion for summary judgment brought by a home developer to recover damages arising from an abandoned agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant admitted non-completion but argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court found the plaintiff did not reasonably mitigate because it failed to disclose or identify specific marketing steps taken to resell the property, chose not to list on MLS, and delayed resale efforts.

The court assessed damages as of the breach date rather than the resale date, resulting in no damages owed after crediting the defendant's deposits.

This decision concerns the validity of a by-law amendment by Information Technology of Systems Ontario (ITSO) requiring member associations to maintain the same corporate structure and control as when they first became members, unless approved by ITSO’s board.

The Barrie & District Association of Realtors (BDAR) challenged the amendment, arguing it was a retroactive breach of contract, impermissibly vague, and made in bad faith to target BDAR.

The court dismissed the application, finding the amendment was not retroactive, was sufficiently clear, and was made for a legitimate purpose in the best interests of ITSO and its members.

The plaintiff, Plainview Heights Property Ltd., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, Moreom Khatun and Rehan Uddin, following a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to defend the proceeding.

The court reviewed the requirements for default judgment, including the need for evidence supporting unliquidated damages.

The court found liability established but adjourned the motion to allow the plaintiff to file further evidence regarding damages and mitigation.

The court considered a motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, Susan Lorraine Jones-Moore, brought a civil action against her former spouse and related corporate defendants, alleging a range of torts including stalking, invasion of privacy, sexual harassment, libel, and slander, much of which overlapped with issues previously litigated in family court.

The court found that the claim was largely an attempt to re-litigate matters already resolved or statute-barred, and that the pleadings were deficient, speculative, and unsupported by material facts.

The claim was dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process.

The appellant landlord appealed a judgment finding it in breach of a commercial lease, granting specific performance, and awarding damages to the respondent tenant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings, interpretation of the lease, grant of specific performance, or assessment of damages, noting the appellant failed to present expert evidence to challenge the damages methodology at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Donavan Locke, appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his second and third actions (alleging deceit and conspiracy against his former common-law partner and her lawyers regarding a property transfer) and dismissing his own motions (including a constitutional question and criminal contempt).

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's decision, affirming that summary judgment was appropriate due to the appellant's lack of evidence and damages.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motions, noting the constitutional question was "ill conceived" and there was no basis for criminal contempt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to each respondent.

The plaintiff and the defendant were in a common law relationship and owned a home as joint tenants.

After they separated, the defendant retained lawyers to sever the joint tenancy by transferring her interest to herself as a tenant-in-common.

The plaintiff brought multiple actions against the defendant and her lawyers, alleging conspiracy, deceit, and fraudulent conveyance.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the claims against the lawyers and the conspiracy/fraudulent conveyance claims against the defendant, finding no unlawful act, no agreement to injure, and no damages suffered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's cross-motions, including for criminal contempt and constitutional declarations, were also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondents damages for illegal distress, conversion, and defamation.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to appear at the hearing and had previously shown no interest in proceeding, including not responding to motions to remove their counsel.

The court found that the appellants had not demonstrated any interest in prosecuting their appeal.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

The plaintiffs, owners of a laundromat business, brought an action against their landlords for wrongful distraint, unlawful termination of their commercial lease, conversion, and defamation.

The landlords had seized the premises without notice, changed the locks, and posted notices accusing the plaintiff of fraud and embezzlement.

The court found the distraint and lease termination were unlawful, as a landlord cannot simultaneously terminate a lease and distrain property.

The court also found the landlords liable for conversion of the business and for defamation due to the false and malicious notices.

The plaintiffs were awarded $362,675 in total damages, including $50,000 for defamation and $50,000 in aggravated and punitive damages.

The defendants' counterclaim for alleged rental arrears was dismissed.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $187,500 in commission from the defendant for an alleged breach of a Buyer Representation Agreement.

The defendant opposed the motion and maintained a counterclaim for damages, alleging the agreement was incomplete when signed and backdated.

The court found significant contradictory evidence regarding the execution and terms of the agreement, concluding there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, as the use of enhanced fact-finding powers would not be in the interests of justice.

The appellant paid a $2,500 retainer to a lawyer on behalf of a third party.

When the third party revoked the lawyer's authorization to speak with the appellant, the appellant sued the lawyer and his firm in Small Claims Court for the return of the funds.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the claim under Rule 12 for disclosing no cause of action.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no contract existed between the appellant and the lawyer, and that the lawyer owed no duty of care to the appellant as a non-client third party.

The defendants brought a motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's action due to outstanding costs awards.

The court stayed the action for six months, allowing the plaintiff time to satisfy the costs or obtain a judicial order varying them.

The court found the plaintiff's financial evidence insufficient but granted a final opportunity before allowing the defendants to renew their motion for dismissal.

The appellant appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice dated June 27, 2017.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was not within its monetary jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Divisional Court.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old senior designer, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer, Thumper Massager Inc., alleging wrongful termination without proper notice or pay in lieu thereof after less than six months of probationary employment.

The plaintiff sought damages for pay in lieu of notice, expenses, and benefits.

The court found that the plaintiff was bound by the six-month probationary period in his employment contract and that the employer was entitled to dismiss a probationary employee without cause or notice, provided the assessment of suitability was not performed in bad faith.

The court determined that the defendant had provided a fair opportunity to the plaintiff and did not act in bad faith in terminating his employment.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant.