David Bernstein

The Estate sought a declaration of ownership and return of a 1967 Mustang Cobra Convertible from the respondent, who claimed the deceased had sold him the car.

The court found that the respondent failed to corroborate his claim of payment as required by s. 13 of the Evidence Act, and that the purported contract was vague and lacked essential terms.

The court also found that the indicia of ownership did not support a transfer to the respondent.

The application was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to return the car and parts to the Estate.

The court dismissed a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Lemon dated June 22, 2021.

As no costs submissions were received from the parties, no costs were awarded.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an eviction order, arguing she was the true owner of the property and the landlord held legal title due to fraud.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal did not raise a question of law under s. 220 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, but rather sought to re-litigate factual findings.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence, noting it merely attempted to contradict the Board's factual findings, which the court could not review.

The defendant, a California corporation that dissolved after allegedly supplying a defective generator but before the plaintiff commenced its action, brought a motion to dismiss the action against it for lack of legal capacity to be sued in Ontario.

The court applied conflict of laws principles, determining that while capacity to be sued is procedural, the legal status of a foreign entity is a substantive issue governed by the law of its place of incorporation.

Because the California Corporations Code permits dissolved corporations to continue to exist for the purpose of defending actions, the court found the defendant had the legal capacity to be sued in Ontario and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiffs were injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision caused by a driver operating an uninsured vehicle with a suspended licence.

They commenced a separate action against an auto body shop and one of its partners, alleging liability based on a bailor/bailee relationship after the vehicle owner had left the vehicle at the shop for potential repairs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no such relationship giving rise to liability existed.

The court concluded that the vehicle owner had effectively abandoned the vehicle and that, at most, a gratuitous bailment existed.

As there was no evidence of gross negligence by the auto shop, which would be required for liability under a gratuitous bailment, the action was dismissed.