Edward M. Iacobucci

Following a trial concerning a $225,000 promissory note, the court resolved outstanding issues regarding damages and costs.

The court determined that damages must be calculated based on a 12% fraction of the debt owing at the time the defendant filed a consumer proposal, plus interest, totaling $21,223.16.

The plaintiff was successful against one defendant and was awarded $51,567.00 in partial indemnity costs, factoring in the implications of the late-raised consumer proposal.

The applicants brought an application under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to declare that an arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear claims brought by the respondent in a family business dispute.

The dispute centered on whether the respondent, who was a shareholder of a corporate partner but not a 'partner' or 'principal' under the partnership agreement, was a 'party' entitled to invoke the arbitration clause.

Applying the principles of contractual interpretation from Sattva, the court found that the plain wording of the agreement, including the recitals and enurement clause, contemplated that shareholders of the partners were parties.

The court concluded that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the respondent's claims for dissolution and increased compensation, as well as the applicants' claims regarding management compensation.

The applicant purchaser entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction condominium unit and submitted a mortgage pre-approval letter to the respondent vendor.

The vendor later discovered the pre-approval letter was inauthentic and terminated the agreement, retaining the purchaser's deposits.

The purchaser brought an application, converted to a summary trial, seeking the return of the deposits.

The court dismissed the application, finding the purchaser fundamentally breached the agreement by providing false financial information.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture, concluding that retaining the deposits was not unconscionable given the purchaser's breach and the vendor's reliance on valid financial information.

At an unopposed trial arising from deficient residential renovation work, the court considered the effect of unanswered requests to admit and struck the statement of defence.

The court accepted deemed admissions to establish liability for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation, while declining to decide oppression-remedy standing because it was unnecessary to the monetary result.

The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for proven damages of $1,046,438.14.

The court rejected the request for contractual 12% compound pre- and post-judgment interest and applied Courts of Justice Act interest rates.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiff employee regarding his voluntary separation.

The plaintiff had communicated acceptance of the employer's offer by email but subsequently refused to execute the full and final release, instead commencing a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff argued the agreement was unenforceable on the basis of no meeting of the minds, lack of consideration, repudiation by the employer, and financial duress.

The court found that the essential terms had been agreed upon, that the employer's erroneous reference to termination for cause was corrected and did not constitute repudiation, that consideration existed in the promise to pay, and that the plaintiff failed to adduce corroborating evidence of financial duress.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and requiring execution of the release.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a tort action arising from a fire that damaged the plaintiff's neighbouring semi-detached house.

The fire was set by an arsonist while the defendants' house was under renovation.

The defendants argued they owed no duty of care to prevent arson and that the arsonist was the sole cause of the damage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants owed a duty to take reasonable care to prevent fire damage to the adjoining property, regardless of the precise cause of the fire.

The court concluded that genuine issues for trial remained regarding the standard of care, breach, and causation.