Domenic Saverino

The court dismissed MC Mines Inc.'s motion to set aside service and stay a third-party claim brought by Best International Cargo Inc. in Ontario.

The dispute arose from damage to mining equipment during transport from Quebec to Montreal, with MC Mines arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Quebec was the more appropriate forum.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the main contract was formed there, and held that the action should proceed in Ontario to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for misappropriation of funds related to a syndicated construction loan.

The court granted summary judgment against the corporate defendants and one individual defendant, finding no genuine issue for trial and declaring the damages resulted from fraud.

However, the court dismissed the motion against two other individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of their claim against them more than two years before they were added to the action, meaning the limitation period had expired.

The respondents, investors in Hetti Group Inc., obtained summary judgment against Hetti Group and its controlling minds for misappropriated loan funds, with the corporate veil pierced and the claim found not statute-barred.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: the motion judge erred in finding the Sugi Defendants were agents for the Hetti Group for the purpose of a key email, the acknowledgment of debt was insufficient for limitation purposes as no amount was specified, and the motion judge erred in piercing the corporate veil.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings on agency, the interpretation of the Limitations Act regarding debt acknowledgment (that a specific amount is not required), and the appropriateness of piercing the corporate veil due to substantial evidence of fund misappropriation.

This endorsement addresses the procedural status of an estates action concerning the ownership of a condominium, originally an application converted to an action.

The court found the matter was not ready for adjudication due to an incomplete evidentiary record (including the severance of joint tenancy and the original plaintiff's death) and non-compliance with previous procedural orders.

The court adjourned the action to a three-day summary trial and issued a detailed timetable for the exchange of pleadings, preparation of evidentiary briefs, and scheduling of a trial management conference and judicial mediation to ensure the matter is properly prepared for trial.

The plaintiffs, retired individuals, loaned $50,000 each to Hetti Group Inc. for residential renovation projects.

The Hetti Group, controlled by Lance Hettiarachchi and Gamini Roy De Silva, allegedly misappropriated funds.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for repayment of the loans plus interest.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that Hetti Group was a sham corporation used by Lance and Roy for improper conduct, thus piercing the corporate veil.

The court also found that the action was not statute-barred due to acknowledgements of debt by the defendants' agents, extending the limitation period.

The Appellant appealed an Assessment Officer's report which found the Respondent's legal account proven and awarded costs.

The Respondent brought a preliminary motion to quash the appeal due to procedural defects and delay.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, accepting the Appellant's counsel's personal circumstances as justification for delay and applying a liberal construction of procedural rules.

However, the court dismissed the appeal on its merits, deferring to the Assessment Officer's credibility findings which favoured the Respondent, and finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence.

The court also amended the title of proceedings to include the Appellant's aliases and awarded costs to the Respondent.

The plaintiff, a depot manager with five years of service, was laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic and brought a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found the termination clause in his employment contract void because its 'just cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff seven months of reasonable notice.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff's Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments should not be deducted from his damages award.

This case is a continuation of a summary judgment on liability for a private mortgage.

The court conducted a trial to determine the exact amount owing under the charge, specifically addressing disputes over a lender's fee and interest adjustment.

The court found that a lender's fee was not enforceable without an express agreement, reducing the principal.

It also adjusted the interest calculation based on the actual advance date.

The final judgment established the total amount owing and granted an order for possession, while also addressing costs.

The appellant, Leslie Rivas, appealed the dismissal of her claim for damages related to an unconventional property arrangement with the respondent, Michael Anobile.

Rivas had transferred her matrimonial home to Anobile, who held it in trust to secure better financing, allowing Rivas and her children to continue residing there.

The property was later sold to a third party.

Rivas alleged fraud and loss of equity.

The trial judge rejected her claim, making adverse credibility findings and concluding that while Anobile owed fiduciary duties, there was no breach, and no damages were suffered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including the appellant's consistent awareness and willing participation in the dealings.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it was in compliance with its commercial lease and sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord alleged the tenant breached the lease by subletting to towing companies and leaving debris outside the premises.

The court found no evidence of a sublease, noting the tenant merely allowed related towing companies to temporarily park vehicles.

The court also held the landlord's Notice of Termination was deficient under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act for lacking specificity.

The lease was declared to remain in full force and effect, and the landlord was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to sharp practices.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate and individual defendants for the shortfall owing on a defaulted commercial truck lease.

The individual defendant argued the defence of non est factum, claiming he was duped into signing the lease by a third party and did not understand English.

The court rejected this defence, finding the defendant was careless in signing the document without seeking translation or advice.

The court also found the plaintiff acted in a commercially reasonable manner when selling the repossessed truck.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim after a mini-trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that the parties should bear their own costs or that she should receive a net costs award due to her costs of resisting a prior summary judgment motion.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting the defendant was entirely successful.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the defendant's failure to provide a proper accounting as a fiduciary and his deceptive conduct regarding property valuation.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $58,443.75.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for fraudulent diversion of equity, loss of opportunity, and punitive damages arising from two transfers of her matrimonial home.

The parties had entered into an unwritten management plan where the defendant held the property in trust to secure better financing while the plaintiff continued to reside there.

The court found that a fiduciary relationship existed, but the defendant did not breach any fiduciary duty or fraudulently divert equity.

The defendant provided a full and proper accounting of the funds, and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a property that was the primary residence of her late mother, forming part of the mother's estate.

The respondent, the estate's executrix and trustee, resided in the property rent-free, refusing to sell it despite a will provision requiring sale within two years of death.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked standing under the Partition Act as she only had a contingent interest in the estate's residue, not immediate possession of the property.

The court clarified that the Estates Administration Act does not automatically vest property in beneficiaries if the will grants the trustee discretion over sale, and the will's specific direction for sale after two years did not grant immediate possession of the property itself, only the sale proceeds.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicant seeking relief under the Trustee Act for removal and replacement of the trustee.

The plaintiffs, Aurelio and Maria Acquaviva, brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage charge against the defendant, Joan Holmes.

Ms. Holmes had defaulted on the charge and raised several defenses, including an alleged oral agreement to renew, a violation of the Interest Act, and a side deal with a mortgage broker involving fraud.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the validity and enforceability of the charge.

However, a trial was ordered to determine the precise amount owing under the charge, including principal and interest, due to mixed funds and unclear accounting.

The court also deferred the decision on possession and costs.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant purchaser's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser counterclaimed for the return of his deposit, arguing the contract was frustrated by a significant drop in the real estate market that prevented him from securing financing.

The court granted the vendor's motion, finding that a market decline does not constitute frustration or impossibility.

The vendor was awarded damages for the loss in property value upon resale and carrying costs, less the deposit, but the court declined to enforce a 20% interest rate provision in the agreement, applying the Courts of Justice Act rate instead.

The plaintiffs (daughter and her partner) sued the defendant (father) for specific performance or damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement to sell the family home to them.

The plaintiffs moved into the home and completed extensive renovations, believing they had an agreement to purchase the home at a discounted price and an extension of the closing date.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral agreement to transfer the property because there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of price, nor was there an agreement to extend the closing date.

The claim for specific performance was dismissed as the property was not objectively unique.

However, the court awarded the plaintiffs $178,860.70 in damages for unjust enrichment to compensate them for the cost of the renovations that increased the value of the defendant's home.

The appellant purchasers appealed a summary judgment finding them in breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for refusing to close due to alleged undisclosed easements.

The purchasers argued that Schedule A of the APS imposed an unqualified duty on the vendors to provide clear title, requiring the discharge of all easements, including standard utility easements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding that Schedule A did not conflict with paragraph 10 of the standard form agreement, which excluded minor utility easements.

The court reasoned that the purchasers' interpretation would lead to an absurd commercial result, as it would require the removal of essential services.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a construction lien registered by the plaintiff roofing company, arguing the lien was not preserved and perfected within the timelines required by the Construction Lien Act.

The defendants claimed the work was completed earlier than the plaintiff asserted, relying on an inspection report and emails.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the actual completion date of the work, noting the defendants' evidence was contradictory and lacked sworn affidavits, and that the timeliness issue was not specifically pleaded in their Statement of Defence.

The Plaintiffs, Heather Downey and Francesco Marchese, sought an order compelling the Defendant, Douglas Arey, to perform various repairs to a residential property prior to trial.

The Plaintiffs claim entitlement to purchase the property from the Defendant at a fixed price, while the Defendant disputes the enforceability of that agreement.

The court dismissed most of the Plaintiffs' requests for repairs, finding that requiring the Defendant to complete significant repairs while the ownership dispute was ongoing would create an inequity, especially given the minimal monthly payment received from the Plaintiffs.

Only a repair addressing an immediate safety issue (electrical switch in the master bedroom) was ordered, with the ultimate cost to be determined at trial.