Domenic Saverino

The plaintiffs, John Moore Construction Management Inc. and Higgins Electrical Contracting Services Ltd., brought a motion to enforce accepted offers to settle and determine costs against Artworld Inc. Artworld had accepted settlement offers but delayed agreeing to judgments and disputed the plaintiffs' claimed costs, attempting to refer them to an assessment officer despite the Master's clear jurisdiction.

The Master found the motion necessary due to Artworld's unreasonable conduct and lack of good faith in resolving the costs issue.

The Master accepted the plaintiffs' costs calculations, with a slight adjustment for partial success, and awarded substantial indemnity costs for the motion due to Artworld's delaying tactics.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that enforced an oral agreement of purchase and sale for the sale of his property to the respondents for $750,000 (after a $100,000 gift to his daughter).

The motion judge had found that the parties agreed to extend the closing date beyond August 31, 2016.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in making a factual determination regarding whether the parties had agreed to extend the closing date.

The court held that this crucial factual question, which turned on credibility assessments and competing versions of events, could not be properly resolved on summary judgment and required a trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted by the Superior Court of Justice ordering him to repay $337,653.67 to the respondent bank.

The claim arose from a forged cheque that the appellant had deposited to his bank account.

The appellant's primary complaint was that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment of the summary judgment motion.

The appellant's counsel requested an adjournment the day before the hearing, citing recent retention and scheduling conflicts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to proceed with the motion, finding no error in the exercise of discretion and noting that the appellant had ample notice of the hearing date and that waiting until the last minute to request an adjournment was contrary to the principles and directives governing summary judgment motions.

Water Matrix Inc. sought a declaration that a judgment debt against Anna Maria Carnevale, arising from fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, or from obtaining property by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation, was not released by her bankruptcy discharge.

The court examined the pleadings, proceedings, and factual context, including a prior Mareva injunction and Ms. Carnevale's criminal conviction for theft.

The court found that the judgment debt fell within sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as it arose from fraudulent conduct while Ms. Carnevale was in a fiduciary position and involved obtaining property by false pretenses.

The motion was granted, declaring the debt undischargeable.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendants' counsel due to a conflict of interest, and a separate motion for leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the Hindu Sabha Temple.

The defendants requested an adjournment of both motions, arguing that the motion to remove counsel could not be heard before or concurrently with the derivative action motion.

The court granted the adjournment, reserving costs, to allow both motions to be heard together at a later date, citing the procedural necessity of determining the derivative action motion first to establish the basis for the conflict motion.

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim regarding a fraudulently transferred property.

The court found serious credibility issues with both parties concerning the property transfers and a trust agreement.

The defendant, as trustee, failed in his duty to account to the plaintiff, the beneficial owner.

Given the significant credibility issues, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial, and suggested a mini-trial or consolidation with related litigation.

The moving parties (respondents in the main application) brought a motion to transfer an application from Brampton to Toronto.

The responding party opposed the motion and requested that a related application issued in Toronto be transferred to Brampton.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the related action and application were based on the same factual matrix and should be heard together to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion to transfer the Brampton application to Toronto and directed that a motion to transfer the Toronto application to Brampton be brought in the appropriate jurisdiction.

The moving party, a law firm representing the general contractor in a consolidated construction lien and breach of contract action, brought a motion for a charging order under s. 34 of the Solicitors Act for unpaid legal fees.

The motion was opposed by a subcontractor who had obtained a judgment against the general contractor and served a notice of garnishment on the property owners.

The court granted the charging order, finding that the law firm was instrumental in recovering funds for its client.

The court further held that the funds recovered were not trust funds under the Construction Lien Act, and therefore the solicitor's charging order took priority over the subcontractor's garnishment notice.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis after obtaining a judgment for $11,826.98 in a mortgage dispute.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

The court found that the plaintiffs had grossly overreached by demanding almost four times their entitlement before agreeing to discharge the mortgage, while the defendant had maintained an unreasonable position regarding the interest rate, rendering the matter virtually unsettleable.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring it to post security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that because its statement of claim included a request for an oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act, it should be immune from a security for costs order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly determined the true essence of the action was a claim for unpaid invoices, not oppression, and therefore the security for costs order was appropriate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the amount owing by the defendant on a mortgage.

The court found that the stated interest rate of 0.8% was a typo and the agreed rate was 8%.

The court disallowed the plaintiffs' claims for a lender's fee, an automatic renewal fee, and administrative fees, finding the renewal fee to be a penalty and the others unsupported by evidence.

The court also found the plaintiffs had received a payment of $86,184.68, contrary to their assertions.

The defendant was ordered to pay the remaining balance of $11,826.98, and the plaintiffs were denied their pre-litigation legal fees.

The defendants (owners) brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(c) for directions on carrying a previous judgment into operation.

The dispute centered on whether the owners were required to pay the notice holdback amount twice: once to the successful subcontractor lien claimants under the Construction Lien Act, and again to the general contractor for breach of contract.

The court held that the owners, having properly retained the holdback, were not required to pay twice.

Payments made to the subcontractors from the holdback trust fund are to be set off against the amount owing to the general contractor under the judgment.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Marvello Construction Ltd., under Rule 56.01(1)(d) and (e).

The plaintiff claimed impecuniosity but failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure for itself or its principals, as required for corporate plaintiffs.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious and that the action, while referencing the Ontario Business Corporations Act, was fundamentally a claim for unpaid invoices, thus not immune from a security for costs order.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in tranches.

The plaintiff, Kwik Snaks Ltd., moved to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing its action for delay, pursuant to Rule 37.14(8) and 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, a collection matter for unpaid invoices, had a protracted procedural history marked by extensive documentary production disputes and multiple motions.

The plaintiff's counsel attributed the delay to inadvertence and a dispute over photocopying costs, while the defendants argued the delay demonstrated an intent not to pursue the action and claimed prejudice due to lack of discovery and fading witness memories.

Applying the contextual approach to the Reid factors, the court found the plaintiff always intended to proceed, the delay was largely inadvertent, and the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice in this document-driven case.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and the action restored to the trial list with a new timetable for discovery and trial setting.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to release photocopied documents without charge, noting the discovery plan did not provide for reimbursement.

The plaintiff contractor was hired to renovate a barn for the defendants under a lump sum contract.

The contractor claimed the defendants agreed to a second contract with an increased price for a third floor, and also claimed for various oral extras.

Two unpaid suppliers registered construction liens against the property.

The court found that the defendants only agreed to the original contract and that no third floor was built.

The court assessed the claimed extras, allowing some and dismissing others.

The court also determined the owners' holdback liability to the lien claimants under the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $52,700, representing the balance of $75,000 advanced to the defendants.

The plaintiff argued the funds were a loan, while the defendants claimed they were an investment in a third-party scheme that ultimately failed.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determined that the funds were advanced as a loan, and granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

The applicants brought an application for specific performance of an oral agreement for the respondents to store their furniture and paintings until they moved to Argentina.

The respondents claimed some of the antique furniture was given to them as a gift.

The court found the respondents failed to prove an intention to donate and ordered specific performance for the return of the items.

However, the court dismissed the applicants' claims for damages related to shipping containers and storage costs due to vague evidence.

The Plaintiff, Water Matrix Inc., brought a motion for judgment in the principal amount of $1,302,377.98 plus interest, following the collapse of a settlement agreement with the Defendants, Anna Maria Carnevale, Stephen M. Cordeiro, and Cordeiro Trucking Limited.

The underlying action was a civil fraud claim against Ms. Carnevale, the Plaintiff's former corporate comptroller, for allegedly transferring over $1.2 million.

A settlement agreement under Rule 49 required the Defendants to pay $750,000 and sign a Consent to Judgment for $1,585,515.00, to be filed upon default.

The Defendants defaulted on the payment, even after a 30-day extension, and failed to provide evidence of financing or meet conditions for lifting a Mareva injunction on Ms. Carnevale's property.

The court found the Defendants breached the settlement agreement and that the Plaintiff's refusal to lift the injunction was reasonable.

Judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the full amount and costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Four days before the hearing, the defendant delivered a detailed responding affidavit alleging accounting irregularities.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment to deliver reply evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The defendant opposed, arguing Rule 20 does not permit reply evidence by a moving party.

The court held that the moving party in a summary judgment motion may deliver reply evidence to ensure the court can gain a full appreciation of the facts.

The adjournment was granted, leave to file reply evidence was given, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs thrown away.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a stay of an order that had discharged a certificate of pending litigation obtained ex parte, pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal.

The prior order discharged the certificate on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to provide full, fair, and frank disclosure, including failing to disclose earlier related proceedings.

Applying the test analogous to an interlocutory injunction—serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience—the court considered the procedural history and an existing consent order preserving the status quo.

The court concluded that maintaining the status quo pending the leave to appeal motion was appropriate to avoid prejudice to either side.

The order discharging the certificate was stayed, subject to limited exceptions allowing the defendants to deal with specified properties, and a scheduled summary judgment motion was adjourned pending the leave motion.