Dara Shane Hirbod

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.

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 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.

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.