David Elmaleh

The defendants by counterclaim brought a motion for partial summary judgment on a counterclaim arising from a complex business relationship involving a share purchase agreement and related transactions.

The defendants argued the counterclaim was statute-barred and that there was no evidence establishing liability.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period due to the ongoing interrelated dealings between the parties that continued into 2019.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against four individual defendants but allowed the counterclaim to proceed against the remaining corporate defendants, finding genuine issues requiring trial regarding commissions owed and the interrelated nature of the business relationships.

The defendants and third party moved to enforce a settlement agreement reached on November 12, 2024, at an exit pre-trial conference.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, sought to repudiate the settlement, alleging that her lawyer, Eli Karp, lacked authority to settle and that the settlement was procured under duress with overbroad release language.

The court found that the parties entered into a binding settlement with all essential terms agreed upon, that Karp had both actual and ostensible authority to settle, and that the settlement was not procured under duress or through misrepresentation.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding the adequacy of the settlement amount and the scope of the releases, finding them to be standard and reasonable.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The applicant condominium corporation applied under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 for an order prohibiting the respondent from occupying or visiting her mother's condominium unit and the building's common elements.

The applicant alleged that the respondent engaged in a campaign of harassment, threats, and intimidation against condominium staff and residents, and raised concerns regarding the elder abuse of her mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.

The respondent's sisters, acting as co-attorneys for their mother, supported the application, noting that the respondent had restricted their access to their mother and exhibited abusive behaviour.

The Court found that the respondent's behaviour breached the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents.

Accordingly, the Court granted the application, permanently barring the respondent from occupying or visiting the unit and the common elements.

The plaintiff sought damages for property damage caused by a water leak from a dishwasher manufactured by the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that the dishwasher's solenoid valve was defective due to plastic degradation and that the defendants failed to warn consumers about the risk of failure during a freezing event.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the valve was defective, as expert evidence suggested a freezing event was the likely cause.

The court also held that the defendants had no duty to warn of the remote risk of a valve failure due to freezing.

The applicants, Jacqueline Anne Horvat (Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario) and the Law Society of Ontario, sought to transfer a libel action initiated by the respondent, Samuel David Goldstein, from Small Claims Court to the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent's claim alleged libel by the Treasurer in a public statement.

The court granted the transfer, finding the case involved complex legal issues, required pre-trial discovery, and raised matters of general public importance concerning the LSO's governance and the conduct of its Benchers.

To mitigate the respondent's concerns about increased costs and potential anti-SLAPP motions, the court imposed conditions: no anti-SLAPP motion could be brought, the applicants' costs would be limited to Small Claims Court levels if successful, but the respondent's costs would not be so limited if he were successful.

The court also offered to remain seized for case management.

This costs endorsement followed a defamation judgment where the plaintiff was awarded $85,000.

The plaintiff sought $37,589.77 in costs.

The defendants failed to submit their costs response on time, citing illness, but had previously indicated acceptance of a $35,000 offer to settle costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, emphasizing the defendants' failure to seek an extension and the plaintiff's thorough submissions.

The plaintiff, Shai DeLuca, an interior designer and public figure, sued the defendants, Foodbenders and its proprietor Kimberly Hawkins, for defamation.

The defendants had posted and reposted statements on Instagram, including calling DeLuca a "terrorist" and implying he aimed a sniper rifle at Palestinian children, and later calling him a "racist" and "killer." The court found the statements defamatory and rejected the defence of fair comment, primarily due to factual inaccuracies and the defendants' malice.

The court awarded $75,000 in general and aggravated damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, and granted a permanent injunction.

This defamation action involved Dianne Ballam and multiple defendants, including Linda Atamanchuk, concerning a newspaper article.

Following settlement with other defendants, the plaintiff, Dianne Ballam, moved to amend her statement of claim to reduce damages to $35,000 and remove injunctive relief, and to transfer the action to the Small Claims Court.

The defendant, Linda Atamanchuk, opposed the transfer, arguing procedural prejudice.

The court granted the amendment and the transfer, finding the Small Claims Court capable of resolving the dispute and that no genuine procedural prejudice would result.

The court also awarded Ms. Atamanchuk partial indemnity costs thrown away.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vella J. dated July 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The applicant private schools sought judicial review of Ontario's decision to allocate the federal 'Safe Return to Class Fund' exclusively to public schools.

Ontario raised preliminary issues of timeliness and justiciability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the expenditure of public funds is a discretionary public policy decision made pursuant to the Crown's common law spending powers.

The court found that the funding allocation was a core policy choice and therefore not justiciable absent jurisdictional error, a constitutional challenge, bad faith, or irrationality, none of which were established.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed an Associate Justice's dismissal of his motion for security for costs.

The appellant argued the Associate Justice erred by not first determining if the prerequisite factors under Rule 56.01(1) were met before exercising discretion, and by excluding a late-filed reply affidavit.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Associate Justice correctly applied a holistic approach to determine if a security for costs order was just, properly concluded the appellant failed to prove entitlement to costs as a self-represented litigant, and appropriately excluded the late affidavit due to prejudice.

The plaintiffs in a defamation action brought a motion for a sealing order and publication ban.

The action arose from social media posts made by the defendant, a family member, following a dispute over funeral attendance.

Applying the test from Sherman Estate, the court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or their biographical core.

The court declined to award costs to the successful defendant because her counsel had previously sent a letter threatening to use the open court principle to embarrass the plaintiffs if they did not abandon their claim.

The moving parties, former tenants, sought an extension of time to appeal an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board requiring them to pay rent arrears, as well as an order refusing to extend the time for review.

The court applied the four-part test for extending the time to appeal and found that the moving parties failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, provided no reasonable explanation for their inordinate delay, and failed to show any merit to their proposed appeal.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing an anti-SLAPP motion.

The appellants (B'nai Brith Canada et al.) sought to dismiss a defamation action brought by the respondent (Canadian Union of Postal Workers - CUPW) under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defamation action arose from press releases published by B'nai Brith alleging CUPW supported terrorism and was anti-Semitic due to its association with a Palestinian union.

The motion judge found CUPW had a substantial case for defamation and that the appellants' defences (justification, fair comment, responsible communication) had serious flaws, and that the public interest favoured allowing the action to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reviewable error in the application of the anti-SLAPP test, including the assessment of the appellants' defences and the public interest balancing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an arbitral award that found they had erected screens on exclusive-use common elements without prior board consent, contrary to condominium rules, and ordered their removal.

The appeal also concerned the arbitrator's costs award.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding the appellants were in breach of the Condominium Act, Declaration, and Rules.

The court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal on costs, affirming the arbitrator's discretion.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs for an application and compensation for her time as a self-represented litigant on a fresh evidence motion.

The court found divided success on the application, entitling the applicant to some costs, but significantly reduced the quantum due to disproportionality and the respondent's reasonable expectations.

For the fresh evidence motion, no costs were awarded to the self-represented applicant due to a lack of evidence demonstrating lost remunerative opportunity, a requirement for lay litigant compensation.

The plaintiffs sued the City of Barrie and several of its employees for misfeasance in public office and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully interfered with their negotiations to lease a portion of their property to Rogers Communications for a cell phone tower.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the city employees did not engage in deliberate unlawful conduct or intend to harm the plaintiffs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or damages, as Rogers had other options and the lease contained an escape clause.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiff union.

The defendants contended the action was an illegitimate attempt to suppress freedom of expression on a matter of public interest.

The court found that while the litigation had some elements of SLAPP, it was not the type of action the legislature intended to stop at a preliminary stage.

The defamation action appeared to have substantial merit, and the defendants' pleaded defences were not certain to succeed.

The court was not persuaded that the plaintiff's principal objective was to stifle criticism.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied.

The applicant sought declaratory relief and damages against the condominium corporation for failure to repair common elements (basement and roof water penetration) and for alleged misrepresentation in the Status Certificate regarding a special assessment.

The court found the condominium corporation breached its duty to repair common elements in a reasonable and timely manner, awarding the applicant lost rental income and specific out-of-pocket expenses.

However, the court dismissed claims for oppression, aggravated damages, and relief from the special assessment, finding no misrepresentation in the Status Certificate.

The applicants sought a declaration that new condominium rules prohibiting transient or hotel-like use of units were invalid, arguing inconsistency with declarations allowing no minimum lease term.

The respondents contended the rules were consistent with provisions requiring units to be used as private, single-family residences.

The court found the respondents' interpretation reasonable, upholding the new rules, and granted the respondents' cross-application for compliance.