David Wallace Dolson

The applicant, the sole registered owner of a property in Kincardine, Ontario, sought an interlocutory injunction to remove the respondent from the property and obtain exclusive possession to facilitate its sale.

The respondent, who currently occupies the property, claimed he owns 51% of the property pursuant to an alleged oral agreement to operate a commercial marijuana cultivation operation.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found the applicant established a strong prima facie case based on the tort of ejectment, irreparable harm from loss of control of the property and ongoing financial burden, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted the injunction with conditions including a 30-day grace period for the respondent to vacate and a requirement that net proceeds of sale be paid into court.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their claim to set aside a mortgage agreement.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in proceeding by way of summary judgment and made palpable and overriding errors of fact and law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellants adduced no grounds to support their position that summary judgment was inappropriate.

The court noted that all alleged irregularities involved third parties, not the respondent, and that the appellants admitted knowing they were signing a mortgage with no mistake as to its nature.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This case involved two applications concerning a family business dispute.

Arif Al-Ali (father) sought declarations that Anwar Al-Ali (son) breached his duties under a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property (POA) and committed corporate oppression by wrongfully transferring shares and removing the father from corporate positions in Poppa Corn Corporation.

Anwar Al-Ali (son) brought a cross-application seeking specific performance or damages related to an agreement for 50% of Poppa Corn shares in exchange for work in Romania.

The court found that the son breached his fiduciary duties under the POA and that his actions constituted corporate oppression.

The court also determined that the son was not entitled to the shares as he had already been compensated in cash for his work in Romania, and his cross-application was statute-barred.

The father's alleged oppression of the son was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Katalin Malatinszky, brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for the defendant, Ahmad Miri's, failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant counterclaimed for the return of his $50,000 deposit and damages, alleging the plaintiff repudiated the agreement and failed to mitigate her losses.

The court found that the plaintiff did not breach the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and acted reasonably in mitigating her damages.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $144,814.70 plus prejudgment interest and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

A law firm (the Firm) sought an order for equitable subrogation to the Toronto-Dominion Bank's (TD) first mortgage interest.

The Firm had paid insurance proceeds to TD after erroneously disbursing them to the mortgagors, Yousefie and his spouse, without including TD as a co-payee, despite instructions.

The property had been sold under power of sale, and the Firm sought priority over TD's equitable mortgage and three other registered mortgagees in the surplus funds.

The court dismissed the Firm's motion, finding that the criteria for equitable subrogation were not met, as the Firm did not pay off the mortgage at the mortgagor's request with the intention of becoming a first mortgagee, nor did it fully discharge the mortgagors' obligation to TD.

Furthermore, the Firm had caused its own loss, TD was not unjustly enriched, and the Firm had alternate remedies.

Granting subrogation would prejudice the other mortgagees who had bargained for their priority.