Edward Hiutin

The court considered a summary judgment motion by Arista Homes (Boxgrove Village) Inc. for forfeiture of a deposit after a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant, Ding Ding, sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the test for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit proportionate and no unconscionability.

The motion was granted and the deposit forfeited to Arista.

The appellant, Anna Marlena Butryn, appealed a summary judgment order enforcing minutes of settlement in mortgage enforcement proceedings.

She argued she signed the minutes under undue influence and duress from her husband, John Chetti, and without independent legal advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no evidence the respondent had knowledge of the alleged undue influence/duress, that the minutes of settlement provided significant benefits to the appellant, and that she was represented by experienced litigation counsel, making independent legal advice from a separate lawyer unnecessary.

The court reiterated that a spousal relationship does not automatically create a presumption of undue influence requiring third-party inquiry unless coupled with a manifestly disadvantageous transaction.

This appeal arose from two actions tried together concerning breaches of a license agreement and fiduciary duties related to powder-coating business ventures.

The trial judge found that Robert Langlois breached a License Agreement and fiduciary duties to the "ACS plaintiffs" (7868073 Canada Ltd. et al.), with Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisting.

Profits were disgorged to the ACS plaintiffs, and a separate action by Gary Sugar was dismissed as moot.

The appellants (Gary Sugar and the "Langlois appellants") challenged the trial judge's findings on the License Agreement's validity and termination, the existence and continuation of fiduciary duties, and the misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The ACS plaintiffs cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals and denied leave to cross-appeal costs, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the License Agreement was valid and not terminated, that fiduciary duties continued, and that corporate opportunities were misappropriated.

The Applicant condominium sought an order appointing an arbitrator and confirming the arbitrator's jurisdiction over issues in its Fresh as Amended Notice of Arbitration.

The Respondent developer sought to quash the notice, arguing repudiation of a prior agreement to appoint a specific arbitrator and that a third party (Gooderham) should be involved due to new matters.

The court granted the Applicant's request to appoint the agreed-upon arbitrator, finding no repudiation.

However, the court deferred the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction, mandate, and whether the third party should be joined to the arbitrator himself, consistent with the principle that arbitrators can rule on their own jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs and the defendant Robert Langlois entered into a joint venture to operate a powder-coating business, ACS.

Mr. Langlois licensed his powder-coating know-how and expertise to ACS.

Before ACS generated any revenue, Mr. Langlois secretly formed a competing business, PCS, with the defendants Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar.

Mr. Langlois diverted corporate opportunities, including a lucrative powder-coating contract, to PCS and later to VML.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and knowing assistance.

The court found that Mr. Langlois breached the Licence Agreement and his fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate opportunities.

The court also found that Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisted in these breaches.

The court ordered disgorgement of profits and repayment of loans and expenses, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

This costs endorsement addresses three motions within a consolidated proceeding.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Adair parties (defendants) against the Pichelli parties (plaintiffs) for their successful summary judgment motions, finding that the allegations of fraud and malfeasance were unsubstantiated.

For the summary judgment motion brought by the Vuletic defendants against the Pichelli parties, costs were reserved to the trial judge due to unresolved factual disputes, including an allegation of forgery.

Finally, for a motion to vary a previous decision regarding Ante Kegalj, the Pichelli parties were awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly reduced from their claim, due to the straightforward nature of the motion and issues with their bill of costs.

The plaintiff, Fortress Carlyle Peter St. Inc., sought costs following its successful summary judgment motion for specific performance.

The defendant, Ricki’s Construction and Painting Inc., challenged the plaintiff's requested all-inclusive sum of $100,000 as excessive and unreasonable, proposing $50,000, and argued for divided success.

The court found the underlying motion was not simple, the plaintiff's costs claim reasonable with a $10,000 reduction, and rejected the argument for divided success.

The court awarded the plaintiff $90,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff, Fortress Carlyle Peter St. Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a property in Toronto, or alternatively, relief from forfeiture of a $1 million deposit.

The defendant, Ricki’s Construction and Painting Inc., brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted specific performance to the plaintiff, finding that the defendant's conduct, including delayed delivery and deceitful alteration of an estoppel certificate, disentitled it from insisting on "time of the essence" for the closing.

The property's uniqueness was also a factor supporting specific performance.

This case involved two applications arising from a failed condominium purchase and sale.

The purchaser sought a refund of her deposit, arguing she validly rescinded the agreement due to the vendor's failure to complete common elements (parkette and gates), which she claimed constituted a material change.

The vendor contended the purchaser breached the agreement by failing to close, leading to termination, and that rescission was not possible after termination.

The court found that the purchaser had no right to refuse closing based on uncompleted common elements, as the agreement explicitly stated this would not deem the unit incomplete.

Furthermore, a change in the construction schedule for amenities was not a "material change" under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court affirmed the common law principle that an agreement cannot be rescinded once it has been validly terminated.

Consequently, the purchaser's application for a deposit refund was dismissed, and the vendor's application was allowed, confirming the purchaser's breach, the vendor's right to terminate and retain the deposit, and the right to sue for further damages.

A trial of an issue was ordered to determine the quantum of damages exceeding the forfeited deposit.

The defendants moved to set aside an ex parte order extending the time for service of a statement of claim in a construction lien action under the Construction Lien Act.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide full and frank disclosure of material facts when seeking the extension, particularly regarding communications with prior counsel and the circumstances surrounding the delay in service.

Applying the principles governing ex parte motions, the court concluded the omitted facts might have influenced the original decision to grant the extension.

The court set aside the extension order, invalidated service of the statement of claim, struck the action, and vacated the registered construction lien and certificate of action.

Conditional directions regarding security for costs and leave to amend the statement of defence were also addressed.