Demetrios Yiokaris

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,200.

The defendants, Dentons Canada LLP and Philip Rimer, brought a third-party claim against various individuals and entities, including other lawyers and advisors, seeking contribution and indemnity in a professional negligence action.

The third parties brought Rule 21 motions to strike the third-party claim, arguing that they acted as agents for the plaintiff and therefore any negligence on their part would be attributable to the plaintiff, precluding a third-party claim.

The court struck the claims against one director (Wang) and the escrow agent, finding them doomed to fail based on agency and contractual principles.

However, the court allowed the claims against the other third-party advisors and lawyers to proceed, finding that they fell into a category of non-agency advisory roles where the plaintiff might not be held contributorily responsible for their actions.

Leave to amend was granted to particularize the claims against certain third parties.

The defendants, a lawyer and his law firm, brought an interpleader motion seeking to pay disputed funds held in their trust account into court.

The funds arose from the sale of a property by the plaintiff corporation, 2823373 Ontario Inc., whose director, Diane Salman, was also a plaintiff.

A dispute arose among the corporation's shareholders regarding the release of these funds.

The plaintiffs opposed the interpleader motion, arguing the funds should be released to the corporation.

The court found that Ms. Salman, on behalf of the corporation, had initially instructed the defendants to hold the funds in trust, but later instructed their release.

The court denied the interpleader motion, concluding that the defendants were not neutral stakeholders and had a beneficial interest in the funds due to the lawyer's involvement as a director of the majority shareholder and the source of investment funds.

The court also declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to order the funds into court.

Consequently, the defendants were ordered to release the disputed funds to 2823373 Ontario Inc.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) initiated receivership proceedings against 1340182 Ontario Limited and Kazembe & Associates Professional Corporation.

The court-appointed Receiver, MNP Ltd., sought approval of its second report, fees, and authorization to assign 1340182 Ontario Limited into bankruptcy, and to distribute proceeds from the sale of a property.

A key dispute arose regarding the priority of mortgages on the property, specifically between Arthur Bryan, 923944 Ontario Ltd., and CIBC.

Bryan claimed his earlier mortgage was fraudulently discharged and sought declaratory relief to restore its first-ranking priority.

The court dismissed Bryan's cross-motion, finding that even if the discharge was fraudulent, the subsequent mortgages of 923944 Ontario Ltd. and CIBC were valid and enforceable under the Land Titles Act, as they were not fraudulent instruments and the mortgagees had no actual or imputed knowledge of fraud.

The court approved the Receiver's report and authorized distribution according to the registered priorities (923944 Ontario Ltd. first, CIBC second).

The court determined costs for four motions previously heard in the proceeding.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the defendant Jain on a partial indemnity basis for a motion to admit further evidence, and on a substantial indemnity basis for motions regarding a Mareva injunction and Norwich order due to the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, including making and withdrawing unfounded allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff was also ordered to pay full indemnity costs to the defendant Wang for a mortgage validity motion, pursuant to the standard charge terms of the mortgage.

The Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the renewal of a home builder's licence despite the sole owner's extensive criminal record.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by interpreting the 'integrity and honesty' criterion in s. 38(1)(b)(iii) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 as placing an onus on the Registrar to disprove the applicant's entitlement on a balance of probabilities.

The Court held that the provision allows the Registrar to deny a licence where it has reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not conduct itself with integrity and honesty, and the onus is on the applicant to prove otherwise.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal.

The Plaintiffs' motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order against Defendant Jain was adjourned sine die due to significant procedural missteps by Plaintiffs' counsel.

These missteps included scheduling a long motion on a short motion date, failing to serve all parties as required by Rule 37.07(1), and providing inadequate notice and unhyperlinked materials.

The court found the alleged urgency was self-created and declined an interim order.

Costs were awarded against the Plaintiffs in favour of the appearing Defendants.

The parties were directed to attend Triage Court to schedule a long motion and consider civil case management.

This is a costs endorsement following a series of motions where the defendants (Royal Bank of Canada and others) and a non-party law firm (LD Law) were largely successful against the plaintiff.

The motions concerned a recusal application, a privilege claim regarding a property transfer from the deceased's estate, and a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and full indemnity costs to LD Law, finding the plaintiff's positions meritless and contributing to litigation delay.

The plaintiff's claim of impecuniosity was rejected due to insufficient evidence and the principle that impecuniosity should not allow parties to disregard court rules with impunity.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that a commercial lease was terminated due to a change of ownership clause, an order for the tenant to vacate, and payment of double rent under an overholding clause.

The plaintiff tenant argued the change of ownership clause was unenforceable due to unconscionability, vagueness, or waiver, and that the termination notice was invalid.

The court granted the landlord's motion, finding the change of ownership clause valid and enforceable, rejecting the tenant's arguments regarding unconscionability, ambiguity, and waiver.

The court declared the lease terminated upon the property sale, ordered the tenant to vacate, and found the tenant liable for double rent as an overholding tenant.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sugunasiri J. dated January 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar, through its trustee, brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself from hearing a privilege motion and a motion to pass accounts.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought disclosure of the Estate Trustee's real estate lawyer's file and an order for the Estate to pass its accounts.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It granted RBC's motion, ruling that the Estate Trustee had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege over the real estate file by relying on legal advice to explain his conduct regarding the property transfer.

The court also found that RBC, as a judgment creditor, had standing under the Estates Act to compel the passing of the Estate's accounts, and ordered the accounts to be passed.

The Registrar proposed to refuse to renew the appellant's licence as a vendor and builder under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Tribunal found that the past and present conduct of the appellant's directors and officers, which included multiple convictions for building unregistered homes and failing to enroll homes with Tarion, did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business would be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to renew the licence subject to strict conditions, allowing it to remain valid only for homes already under construction and to be revoked immediately upon their completion or after one year.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, Thorneloe University appealed a Claims Officer's decision valuing its loss of commercial value claim at zero following the disclaimer of their Federation Agreement.

Thorneloe argued the Claims Officer erred by applying a lost profits approach rather than a loss of business value approach, relying on an expert report valuing the enterprise at $9.8 million.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Claims Officer's factual determination that Thorneloe was an unprofitable entity and his subsequent rejection of the expert's revenue multiplier methodology.

The court affirmed that expectation damages (lost profits) is the customary remedy for breach of contract, and a non-breaching party is not entitled to be put in a better position than if the contract had been performed.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the renewal of the appellant's vendor and builder licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting s. 38(1)(b)(iii) regarding the standard for assessing past conduct, and made errors of fact regarding the appellant's evidence.

The Tribunal found no error of law in its interpretation of the statute, noting the clear wording requires a holistic assessment of whether past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that the business will be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to revoke and impose conditions on their home construction licences.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order revoking certain licences, imposing conditions on others, and requiring the payment of a $60,000 administrative monetary penalty along with the return of over $2.5 million in monetary benefits to affected purchasers.

At the start of a motion for a Mareva injunction, a journalist requested permission to record the proceeding with his own audio recording device pursuant to s. 136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court denied the request, finding that while the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction permits media to use electronic devices for notetaking, this is subject to the presiding judge's discretion under the Act.

Because an official court reporter was present to provide a complete and accurate recording, the court held there was no need for a second recording by the media.

The appellant's property was sold under power of sale.

She initiated an action alleging conspiracy to defraud and moved to set aside the sale, claiming fraud and improvidence.

The motion judge dismissed all claims except for an accounting by the mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no direct or circumstantial evidence of fraud, and that the sale was not improvident, especially considering the appellant's history of default and delay.

The applicant, acting as receiver for the primary secured creditor, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over the debtor company.

The debtor company's interim receiver concurrently sought an extension of time to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and approval of its activities.

The court lifted the existing stays of proceedings, appointed the receiver, granted a 45-day extension to file a proposal to avoid automatic bankruptcy, and approved the interim receiver's activities, finding the relief to be just, convenient, and unopposed.

The appellant home builder brought a motion to strike a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar as an abuse of process.

The Notice proposed adding a condition to the appellant's licence requiring an employee to complete a customer service course, which the employee had already completed by the time the appellant notified the Registrar.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no abuse of process because the Registrar was unaware of the course completion when it issued the Notice and had a public protection mandate to proceed with a hearing on the suitability of the condition.