Darryl Singer

The plaintiff moved in writing for default judgment seeking possession of a property and payment of $313,544.95.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statement of claim failed to plead facts establishing a contractual nexus between the plaintiff and the defendant, or that any money was actually advanced.

Furthermore, the affidavit in support failed to attach the correct contractual documents and provided no foundation for the various fees and penalties claimed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal concerning the discharge of mortgages.

The appellant, Rick Goodman, challenged two findings of the application judge: that a $60,000 promissory note was statute-barred and that certain legal fees could not be added to the mortgage balance.

The court upheld the application judge's findings, confirming that the promissory note's limitation period ran from its maturity date and that the legal fees, despite being incurred pre-mediation, were not properly claimed six-and-a-half years later.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out of its banquet hall business by the respondent landlord due to rent arrears accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the landlord had lulled the tenant into believing rent was reduced or in abeyance, and that the landlord's re-entry on October 19, 2020, violated the Protecting Small Businesses Act, 2020.

The court granted the application, ordering the landlord to restore possession and granting the tenant relief from forfeiture.

At an initial case conference for a proposed class action, counsel agreed on a timetable leading up to the certification motion.

The court endorsed the agreed schedule, setting the certification motion for September 9, 2021.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action sought to replace existing class counsel with new counsel.

Existing class counsel opposed this and brought a cross-motion to disqualify the representative plaintiff, alleging a lack of competence and seeking a litigation guardian.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the representative plaintiff competent and that the attempt to change counsel was influenced by personal interests related to a dispute between existing and proposed counsel's associate, rather than the class's best interests.

The court directed existing class counsel to find a new representative plaintiff within 60 days and encouraged addressing the retainer agreement's indemnity for adverse costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university discipline board decision that upheld a tribunal's finding of academic dishonesty regarding his doctoral thesis.

The tribunal had denied the applicant's request for an adjournment and proceeded with the hearing and penalty phase in his absence, ultimately recommending his degree be cancelled and he be expelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decisions to deny the adjournment and proceed immediately to penalty were procedurally fair and reasonable given the extensive history of delay, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, and the prior notice provided to the applicant.

The tenant, a law firm, vacated its commercial premises and sought to sublet to a private school.

The landlord refused consent because the lease expressly prohibited use as a school.

The tenant stopped paying rent and brought an application declaring the refusal unreasonable, while the landlord moved for summary judgment for rental arrears.

The court found the landlord's refusal reasonable and granted summary judgment for the arrears, noting the landlord had no duty to mitigate since it had not terminated the lease.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) after initially returning to work but claiming he could not continue due to accident-related back pain.

The insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant lacked credibility and was terminated from his employment for other reasons.

The adjudicator found the applicant's testimony regarding his medical history and prior injuries to be highly inconsistent and lacking credibility.

Relying on the respondent's orthopedic expert who found no objective impairment, the adjudicator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his employment and dismissed the appeal.

Two summary judgment motions were brought regarding equipment leasing contracts.

The lessor, National Leasing, sought judgment for unpaid lease amounts, while the vendor, Telepacer, sought to dismiss the lessees' claim for non-delivery of equipment.

The court found that the equipment was delivered, rejecting the lessees' unsupported assertions of non-delivery.

Furthermore, the court held that the lessees were bound by the lease terms to pay the outstanding amounts regardless of the delivery dispute.

Both motions for summary judgment were granted, and the lessees' counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action for damages arising from his arrest on February 13, 2013.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as time-barred, finding that the limitation period for battery and false arrest claims crystallized on the date of arrest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where a battery action is a mirror image of criminal charges, the discovery date is when the criminal proceedings conclude, not when the arrest occurs.

The appellant's action, commenced May 13, 2016, was within two years of the October 22, 2015 conclusion of the criminal charges via peace bond and therefore not time-barred.

The parties, former real estate business partners, disputed the ownership of three commercial parking spaces.

The defendant had paid the entire purchase price, but legal title was registered to the plaintiff's corporation due to a mistaken belief about condominium ownership rules.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to buy the defendant's beneficial interest.

The court found no enforceable agreement existed, noting it would violate the Statute of Frauds.

Recognizing the defendant as the sole beneficial owner under a resulting trust, the court ordered the plaintiff to convey legal title to the defendant.

The applicant sought accident benefits for psychological assessments and treatments following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her vehicular anxiety and psychological impairments fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Relying on the evidence of the applicant's family physician and the insurer's independent medical examiners, the arbitrator concluded the applicant's physical injuries had largely resolved and her vehicular anxiety did not constitute a psychiatric condition severe enough to remove her from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG cap had already been reached, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The insurer was awarded its expenses.

The applicant sought to stay academic disciplinary proceedings before the University Tribunal pending his application for judicial review of the Tribunal Chair's interim decisions refusing to recuse himself and refusing to disqualify the university's counsel.

The university brought a cross-motion to quash the judicial review application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and granted the cross-motion to quash, finding that the application for judicial review was manifestly premature as the hearing on the merits had not yet proceeded and the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy through an internal appeal.

The applicant sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction to lift a Site Alteration Order issued by the respondent, which prohibited the importation of 500,000 m³ of fill for a proposed berm on its property.

The applicant argued the berm constituted landscaping and fell under an exception to the respondent's Fill Control By-law.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to meet the higher standard for a mandatory injunction, did not demonstrate irreparable harm (as it was the author of its own misfortune by proceeding without legal certainty), and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to potential environmental damage and remediation costs.

The applicant's undertaking as to damages was also deemed inadequate.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order, proposing a new release plan with four new sureties, a change of residence to Brampton, and an ankle bracelet.

The court applied the Palmer criteria for new evidence and found that the new plan did not address the core issue: the applicant's inability to abide by bail conditions, having previously re-offended while on bail.

The application for release was dismissed and the detention order under s. 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code was upheld.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, the successful insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration.

The arbitrator found the insurer was entitled to expenses, noting it had bettered its offer to settle and the issues were not novel.

However, the arbitrator reduced the claimed amount because the insurer's counsel incorrectly billed at the higher hourly rate reserved for an insured person's counsel under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, rather than the applicable legal aid tariff rate.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.00 inclusive of HST.

Following a mixed result in a statutory accident benefits arbitration, the parties sought their expenses.

The arbitrator reviewed the criteria under Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Finding that each party was partially successful and that neither party's conduct unduly prolonged the proceeding, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear its own expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $25,000 for surgery in the United States.

The insurer denied the claim and raised a preliminary issue that the application for arbitration was statute-barred under section 281.1 of the Insurance Act, as it was commenced more than two years after the denial.

The applicant argued that a letter sent to the Commission requesting to add the issue to a previous arbitration satisfied the limitation period or that the insurer waived the limitation period.

The Arbitrator found that the letter did not constitute a valid application for arbitration and that the insurer did not consent to adding the issue or waive the limitation period.

The claim was held to be statute-barred and the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration.

The applicant's legal representatives brought a motion to withdraw as counsel of record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as the applicant had moved to Vietnam and ceased communicating with them.

The insurer brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to attend pre-hearings.

The arbitrator granted the representatives' motion to withdraw and dismissed the application for arbitration as frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to abandonment.

The insurer was awarded $750 in expenses.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was completely successful and the applicant was completely unsuccessful, largely due to adverse credibility findings and grossly exaggerated claims.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses, fixed at $5,000 inclusive of fees and disbursements.