Dietrich

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion to approve a marketing and sale process by tender for undeveloped commercial property.

The respondent debtor brought a competing motion seeking an order directing the Receiver to accept a specific offer from its financial backer.

The court approved the Receiver's proposed process, finding it fair, transparent, and commercially reasonable, and dismissed the debtor's motion, noting the proposed process would optimize the chances of securing the best possible price for all stakeholders.

The applicant vendor brought a motion for leave to obtain a writ of possession for an industrial property after the respondent purchaser breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay municipal taxes on time.

The respondent cured the breach by paying the tax arrears before the hearing and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the three-part test for relief from forfeiture, noting the applicant's own failure to fulfill environmental remediation obligations under the agreement.

Finding that forfeiture of a multi-million dollar property for a cured tax default would be disproportionate, the court granted relief from forfeiture and dismissed the motion.

Following a motion for directions where the court ordered that the corporate respondent not pay the personal respondents' legal fees for their appeal of a winding-up order, the court determined costs.

The applicant sought costs of $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents failed to provide written submissions.

The court awarded the requested $4,500 to the applicant, ordering that it be paid jointly and severally by the personal respondents, as their conduct in breaching a stay order necessitated the motion.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order for child support.

The respondent father claimed he was unemployed and had limited income, despite living an extravagant lifestyle funded by his wealthy father (the children's grandfather) through gifts, loans, and family trusts.

The court found the father's financial disclosure inadequate and drew an adverse inference.

Applying the Bak factors, the court imputed an annual income of $463,863 to the father based on his lifestyle, corporate add-backs, and the history of generous gifts.

The father was ordered to pay table child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, including a fixed annual amount for extracurricular activities.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the determination of the respondent husband's income as a self-employed musician, the treatment of his royalty income, the imputation of income to the applicant wife, spousal support, child support, and the equalization of net family property.

The court found that the husband's royalty income should be included for support purposes and capitalized for property equalization, rejecting the application of the rule against double-dipping.

Income was imputed to both parties.

The court ordered the husband to pay table child support, a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, compensatory spousal support for a fixed duration of nine years, and an equalization payment of $37,095.57.

The plaintiffs brought an action in defamation against the defendant, a former union member, for publishing numerous derogatory posts and videos online.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be heard concurrently with a summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the posts defamatory and malicious, and awarded a permanent injunction and costs.

The appellant appealed a Master's order requiring it to pay security for costs.

The Master had found that the appellant, a foreign corporation, had insufficient assets in Ontario and failed to demonstrate impecuniosity on a balance of probabilities due to inadequate financial disclosure and credibility issues with its principal.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Master's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant contractor brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff owner's action for faulty workmanship.

The construction contract contained a covenant requiring the owner to purchase property insurance covering damage resulting from defective workmanship and to name the contractor as an insured.

The court held that this covenant to insure operated as a voluntary assumption of risk by the owner, relieving the contractor of liability for damages caused by its negligence or breach of contract.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for alleged Charter breaches, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs on the basis that the case was pursued in the public interest.

The defendant sought a modest costs award, noting the plaintiff's decision to traverse the action from Small Claims Court to the Superior Court and his rejection of two Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court awarded the defendant $25,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, taking into account the early offers to settle and the plaintiff's assumption of risk.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim against the defendant David Rosenkrantz, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against Rosenkrantz in his capacity as an officer and director of the Patica Companies, relating to a tax deferral arrangement.

The court found the pleadings lacked the necessary material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability, negligent misrepresentation, or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim and the related crossclaim against Rosenkrantz, but granted leave to amend.

The applicants, a private management company and a school board, sought a declaration that a sports facility operated by the company on school board land was exempt from property tax.

The municipal assessment corporation had assessed the land as taxable, arguing the company was a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the licence agreement between the company and the school board created a landlord-tenant relationship.

The company satisfied the essential elements for rateable occupation, including actual occupation, exclusivity, value, and permanence.

Consequently, the land was not exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act.

The defendant solicitor brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against him for damages for an improvident sale and for an accounting of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs, who were third mortgagees, conceded the improvident sale claim against the solicitor.

However, they maintained the claim for an accounting, arguing the solicitor owed a duty to disburse funds honestly and account to subsequent encumbrancers under the Mortgages Act.

The court found the accounting claim was not doomed to fail and dismissed the motion to strike it, but ordered that the claim against the solicitor would be struck if he provided the accounting within 10 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The core issue was the enforceability of a termination clause that the plaintiff argued contracted out of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) by failing to explicitly provide for severance and benefit continuation.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable because it potentially provided less than the ESA minimums.

The plaintiff was awarded 8 months' reasonable notice at common law and compensation for lost bonuses during the notice period, as the bonuses were found to be an integral, non-discretionary part of his compensation.

The claim for lost benefits was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of actual loss.

The plaintiff, a former Olympic alpine skier, brought a motion for summary judgment against her former tax lawyer and his firm for professional negligence.

The defendants had advised the plaintiff to participate in an aggressive offshore tax plan to wind up her amateur athletic trust, which the Canada Revenue Agency later deemed a sham.

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of the significant legal risks associated with the plan.

The court held that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care because the duty to warn was clear, and directed that the issue of damages proceed to trial.

The plaintiff school brought an action for defamation against two former students and their paralegal based on an email the paralegal sent to York University inquiring about the school's relationship with the university.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the email was protected by absolute privilege.

The court granted the motion, finding that the email was a reasonable pre-litigation communication made in the course of investigating the clients' claims and was therefore protected by absolute privilege.