David G. Stinson

The plaintiff, a professional hockey player, sued the defendant for wrongful termination of a promotional contract.

The defendant had terminated the agreement citing the plaintiff's demotion to a minor league team and the circulation of nude photographs of the plaintiff on the internet.

The court found that the defendant was not entitled to rescind the contract as it had received much of what it bargained for, and the morals clause did not apply retrospectively to the private sharing of intimate photos.

The plaintiff was awarded $162,500 in damages for the remainder of the contract term and its renewal.

The plaintiff, Arif Hayat, brought an action against the defendants, Mushtaq Raja and his corporations, for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

Hayat advanced over $555,000 to Raja for investments in a trucking company and a restaurant venture.

Raja used corporate funds for personal expenses, falsely represented his own financial contributions, and fraudulently induced Hayat to resign as a director and surrender his shares in the restaurant corporation.

The court found Raja liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppressive conduct.

The court ordered Raja, Minaj Transport Inc., and Maryat Investments Inc. to pay Hayat $475,000, and ordered Direct Ex Logistics Inc. and Raja to repay a $36,179 loan and issue shares to Hayat.

The defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.

The applicants (Builder) brought a motion under s. 25(7) of the Building Code Act to stay an Order to Comply (OTC) issued by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the Town of Midland, pending the outcome of a related Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) appeal initiated by the respondent homeowners.

The OTC required the removal and replacement of stucco on a newly built house.

The CBO supported the stay, while the homeowners opposed it.

The court found that the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay did not apply because the court was merely deciding not to exercise its jurisdiction until a later time.

Applying the test for a temporary stay pending another proceeding, the court found substantial overlap of issues, shared factual background, and that a stay would prevent duplication of resources.

The motion for a stay was granted, and the OTC appeal was adjourned pending the LAT appeal outcome.

Following a successful application by the City of Toronto to inspect a residential property for Building Code compliance, the City sought costs.

The respondents argued the City was unsuccessful on most of its requested orders.

The court rejected this, finding the City obtained the necessary inspection orders and was the successful party.

The court awarded the City $20,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the respondents' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful partial summary judgment motion brought by the Tassones against Hampton Securities Limited.

The Tassones had successfully dismissed Hampton's claims for over $600,000 in trading losses and relief under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court found the Tassones were entirely successful on the principal claims and awarded them partial indemnity costs, rejecting Hampton's arguments for divided success or disentitlement due to unproven allegations.

The quantum of costs, fixed at $48,500.54, was deemed fair and reasonable, considering the importance of the issues and the comparable legal expenses incurred by both parties.

The plaintiffs, DK Manufacturing Group Ltd. and S.G. Investments Group Ltd., sought insurance proceeds and damages for bad faith from Co-operators General Insurance Company following a fire and water damage incident.

Co-operators brought a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the claims for insurance monies were resolved by a binding appraisal process and that a one-year contractual limitation period barred other claims.

The court found that Form AB, containing contractual statutory conditions including a one-year limitation period and appraisal process, applied to both policies.

The appraisal awards were binding, dismissing claims for further insurance monies.

However, the one-year contractual limitation period did not apply to the extra-contractual bad faith claims, which are governed by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs sued the Town of Orangeville for breach of contract related to a biosolids disposal tender and an agreement of purchase and sale for a storage facility.

The court found the Town breached "Contract A" by accepting a non-compliant tender bid from a third party (Entec) but dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for lost profits (Contract B) because they failed to prove they would have been awarded the contract.

The court also found the Town validly exercised a termination clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages related to the property sale.

The Town's counterclaim for the return of the deposit was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for three defendants (Ruby, Louis, and Sylvia Kakoutis), the return of a $10,000 deposit, and the removal of certain internet postings.

The court ordered defendant Louis Kakoutis to undergo a mental examination under section 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that he had put his mental state in issue through his counterclaim.

The court declined to appoint a litigation guardian for Ruby and Sylvia Kakoutis due to a lack of current medical evidence and refused to order the removal of internet postings, citing a lack of jurisdiction in the current proceeding.

The return of the deposit was deferred pending resolution of the litigation guardian issue.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action, primarily focusing on a defamation claim, due to the plaintiffs' failure to provide the statutory notice required by s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The court dismissed the libel claim of one plaintiff, Nina Willis, finding that compliance with the notice requirement is a condition precedent and its absence constitutes an absolute bar.

However, the motion to dismiss was denied for her remaining claims and all claims of the other plaintiffs, as it was not plain and obvious that these claims, including potential claims akin to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, could not succeed.

The court also declined to dismiss claims for plaintiffs who had not been properly served with the motion.

Following a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $146,651.44, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff's claim for fees and disbursements reasonable, noting the moderate complexity of the case and the defendant's lack of cooperation which necessitated additional steps.

Costs were fixed at the all-inclusive sum of $35,394.51.

The defendants, a former employee and his wife, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's claim.

The employer sued the former employee for over $600,000 in accumulated trading losses incurred during his employment as a trader.

The court had to determine whether the employee was contractually obligated to indemnify the employer for trading losses in excess of his personal reserve account upon termination of his employment.

The court found that while the employer was entitled to apply the balance of the personal reserve against the losses, there was no express or implied term in the employment contract requiring the employee to cover the remaining losses.

The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for the excess losses was dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration that an easement for a water pipe across their property, benefiting the respondents' adjacent property, was invalid.

The respondents counter-applied for a declaration that the easement was valid.

The court found that historical documents from 1968 and 1979 were intended to create an easement, not a mere license.

Although the 1979 document initially violated the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act, the court held that subsequent conveyances containing prescribed solicitor statements triggered the curative provision in s. 50(22) of the Planning Act, validating the easement.

The applicants' argument under the Registry Act was also dismissed because the properties had been converted to the Land Titles system.

The application was dismissed and the counter-application granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against her ex-boyfriend after he posted an intimate video of her on a pornographic website without her consent.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy (specifically, public disclosure of embarrassing private facts).

Recognizing this as a novel civil claim in Canada, the court awarded the plaintiff the maximum simplified procedure limit of $100,000 in damages, comprising general, aggravated, and punitive damages, along with full indemnity costs and permanent injunctive relief.

The plaintiff purchaser moved for summary judgment seeking return of $1.2 million in deposits paid under an aborted real estate transaction, while the defendant vendor cross‑moved for summary judgment declaring its entitlement to retain the deposits.

The dispute centred on whether the vendor improperly refused to accept a proposed subordination and standstill agreement relating to secondary financing and thereby prevented closing.

The court held that the agreement of purchase and sale permitted secondary financing only if the secondary lender subordinated its rights to the vendor’s vendor‑take‑back mortgage and related security provisions, including an escrow deed provision and an escalator clause.

The purchaser’s proposed financing arrangements would have impaired those security rights and therefore did not comply with the contract.

The court concluded the purchaser failed to close and the vendor was entitled to retain the deposits.

The self‑represented moving party sought to reopen a 2012 judgment dismissing a dependant’s support claim under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, relying on Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and alleging fraud and newly discovered facts.

The court held that all alleged misrepresentations regarding the value of the estate were known to the moving party prior to the original decision and therefore did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation and found no basis to set aside the prior judgment.

While the court noted potential issues regarding an earlier consent order dismissing related claims, that issue had not been properly brought before the court.

The motion to reopen the trial and set aside the 2012 judgment was refused.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following termination without cause.

The employer relied on an employment contract purporting to limit termination entitlements to those provided under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and to exclude any common law damages.

The court held the termination clause was unenforceable because it limited compensation to salary and failed to ensure continuation of benefits during the statutory notice period, contrary to s. 61(1) of the ESA and therefore void under s. 5(1).

As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to pursue common law reasonable notice.

The court determined that prior service with the predecessor company following insolvency and a CCAA restructuring should not be credited for common law notice purposes and awarded eight months’ reasonable notice.

The municipality applied under s. 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992 for orders requiring property owners to permit inspection of a residential addition constructed without a building permit and to provide engineering reports verifying compliance with the Building Code.

The owners argued the City lacked authority to inspect without a warrant and that the requested relief violated their Charter rights.

The court held that s. 38 empowered the court to order compliance with the Act and that inspections were a necessary part of the statutory scheme governing building permits.

The owners could not rely on the dwelling status of the property to resist inspection where the construction had been carried out illegally.

The application was granted and the City was authorized to inspect the property and uncover portions of the construction if necessary.

Public interest organizations and individual electors sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend a provision of the Fair Elections Act that prohibited the Chief Electoral Officer from authorizing the Voter Information Card as proof of identity or residence for voting in a federal election.

The applicants alleged the provision infringed the right to vote under s.3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and risked disenfranchising certain groups.

The court held the challenge raised a serious issue and that disenfranchisement could constitute irreparable harm.

However, binding appellate authority establishes a rule against granting interlocutory relief that effectively suspends electoral legislation immediately before an election.

Applying that principle, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the legislation to remain in force pending a full constitutional hearing.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant held title to a residential property as a bare trustee to enable mortgage financing while the plaintiff maintained beneficial ownership and paid all property expenses.

The defendant denied the existence of a trust and asserted she owned the property and the plaintiff was merely her tenant.

After disputes arose and the defendant initiated Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings, the property was sold under power of sale and repurchased by the plaintiff, resulting in alleged lost equity.

The court conducted a mini‑trial to resolve credibility issues and accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the defendant held title in trust and repudiated the trust arrangement.

The court also found that the defendant had received and failed to repay two loans advanced in 2008 and 2009.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant mutual fund dealers for inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment after the defendants acquired the book of business of the plaintiff's tenant, who subsequently defaulted on its lease and went bankrupt.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants did not intend to procure a breach of the lease, did not engage in unlawful conduct targeting the plaintiff, and that the bankruptcy process provided a juristic reason for any enrichment.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity scale.