Eliezer Karp

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Leiper J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The responding parties requested costs but failed to provide a Costs Outline as required, resulting in no costs being awarded.

Three law firms brought competing carriage motions to represent a class of shareholders of Canopy Growth Corporation in a securities misrepresentation class action.

The court evaluated the competing claims under s. 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court granted carriage to the Dziedziejko action, finding that its longer class period, which included thousands of additional shareholders based on prior financial misrepresentations, better served the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification without sacrificing efficiency.

The competing Leonard and Twidale actions were stayed.

The appellant appealed an order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home.

The appellant also brought a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding his medical condition and the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the original hearing.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that partition and sale would not prejudice the appellant's substantive rights and that the respondent's motion was not frivolous or vexatious.

Money Gate Corporation (MGC) brought a motion for an extension of time to file its notice of appeal and a declaration that it had an appeal as of right under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), or alternatively for leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The underlying matter involved a receivership where a motion judge had dismissed MGC's claim for payment from the proceeds of a property sale, finding no valid assignment of a second mortgage and that MGC was not the registered owner.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time, finding MGC's grounds of appeal not frivolous and no real prejudice to the responding parties.

Crucially, the court declared that MGC had an appeal as of right under s. 193(c) of the BIA, concluding that the motion judge's order finally determined MGC's economic interests in the property proceeds, distinguishing it from a mere priorities dispute.

The appellant, Mikhail Khanine, appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law dispute due to wilful non-compliance with multiple court orders, including a consent order for financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming that striking pleadings is an extraordinary remedy but justified in cases of egregious and exceptional wilful non-compliance with disclosure obligations, especially given the appellant's history of non-compliance and evasive tactics.

The court also addressed costs, awarding partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and its guarantors after the borrower defaulted on a loan and was placed into receivership.

The defendants argued they were induced to sign the guarantees by misrepresentations from their lawyer, who also acted for the bank, regarding the priority of the bank's security interest.

Using enhanced fact-finding powers to hear oral evidence, the court found the defendants' evidence lacked credibility and that no misrepresentations were made.

The court held the guarantees were absolute and unconditional, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the outstanding loan amount.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by Money Gate Corporation, the successful responding parties sought costs. 2399029 Ontario Inc. and World Corporation Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs of $185,687.19 due to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, which Money Gate Corporation did not dispute in principle but argued were inflated.

The court reduced the claimed amount due to unnecessary work and fixed costs at $160,000 on a substantial indemnity scale.

Curah Capital Corporation was awarded its requested $12,024 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, Victoria Sanders, sought costs of $75,740.16 after successfully obtaining an interlocutory injunction against Canada's Choice Investments Inc. (CCI) to restrain mortgage enforcement.

CCI argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, which is typical for interlocutory injunctions as there has been no final determination of rights.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, agreed with CCI, ordering that the costs of the motion be "in the cause" to be determined by the trial judge, citing the unique nature of interlocutory injunctions and the potential for material to be used later in the litigation.

The 78-year-old plaintiff, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant private lenders from enforcing a $500,000 high-interest mortgage registered against her home.

The plaintiff alleged the mortgage was unconscionable and procured through fraudulent misrepresentations by door-to-door salespeople.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff only needed to show a serious question to be tried, but had in fact established a strong prima facie case of both unconscionability and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court concluded the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if forced from her home, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting her interests pending trial.

The applicant wife sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds paid into court.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that an interim sale would prejudice his substantive rights under the Family Law Act or that the motion was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The court found that the sale would not prejudice the husband's substantive rights, as his financial interests would be protected by payment into court, and a potential vesting order was too remote.

The court also determined the motion was not vexatious or malicious, noting the wife had sought the sale since 2019 and that it moved the parties closer to resolution.

The motion for sale was granted, with specific terms for listing and sale.

In a receivership proceeding, a non-party, Money Gate Corporation (MGC), brought a motion seeking a distribution of $1,159,517.66 from the proceeds of the sale of a property, claiming to be the assignee of a second mortgage.

The motion was opposed by the property owner and the holder of subsequent charges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that MGC failed to prove it used its own funds or funds raised from private investors to purchase the assignment.

Furthermore, MGC's failure to register the transfer under the Land Titles Act meant it did not have priority over subsequent registered charges.

The plaintiff, an investor in a mining company, brought a motion for leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and a motion to certify a class action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts about the viability of a gold mine in their prospectuses, which were later revealed in a press release, causing a drop in share price.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide expert geological evidence to explain the technical mining disclosures and establish that the alleged omissions were known or knowable at the time the prospectuses were issued.

Without such evidence, there was no reasonable possibility of success for the statutory claim and no basis in fact for the class action common issues.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found no reprehensible or outrageous conduct by the defendant to justify elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $18,416.24.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order for specific performance arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and increased mortgage rates incurred due to the breach.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the plaintiff legal fees, moving costs, ongoing storage costs, and the difference in mortgage rates, to be deducted from the purchase price on closing.

The claim for rent was denied as it was offset by the savings from not paying a mortgage.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for ongoing non-disclosure and failure to comply with court orders.

The respondent, who resides abroad, failed to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his foreign corporate interests, despite a consent order requiring him to do so.

Much of the disclosure provided was in Russian without certified translations, contrary to the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be wilful, tactical, and obstructionist, noting his history of ignoring previous support and property sale orders.

The motion was granted, the respondent's pleadings were struck, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment and specific performance for an aborted real estate transaction.

The Defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by refusing to close, initially citing spousal objection, which was later resolved by a court order.

The court found the Defendant in anticipatory breach and the Plaintiff to be the innocent party.

The central issue was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or damages.

Applying the "uniqueness" test from Semelhago, the court found the property unique, considering market conditions and the unavailability of comparable properties within the Plaintiff's price range.

The Plaintiff was deemed justified in not mitigating damages, especially given the Defendant's retention of the deposit.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff, ordering specific performance of the agreement.

This decision concerns a carriage motion between two proposed securities class actions, Kennedy v. Akumin Inc. and Longair v. Akumin Inc., brought under the amended Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court applied the new s. 13.1 of the CPA, which mandates a focus on efficiency and likelihood of success in advancing class members' claims.

The Longair action proposed a broader class period, alleged more categories of misrepresentation, and named additional defendants, including the company's auditor.

The court found that the Longair action better advanced the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification by encompassing more viable claims and defendants, despite some reservations about the claim against the auditor.

Carriage was granted to the Longair action, and the Kennedy action was stayed.

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 sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing a security interest over corporate shares that the plaintiff, Avinoam Rabinowitz, had purchased from the defendant, James Westbrook.

Rabinowitz defaulted on the first instalment of the purchase price and claimed equitable set-off due to alleged damages from the share purchase transaction, asserting causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court granted the injunction on the condition that the plaintiffs deposit $650,000 cash or an irrevocable letter of credit with the Accountant of the Court as alternative security.

The judge found that while the plaintiffs' claims on the merits were weak and their conduct lacked "clean hands" the risk of business loss constituted irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored protecting the defendants' security interest through alternative collateral.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant, Anita Csizmazia, appealed an order refusing to set aside a final order made after an uncontested trial.

She alleged misrepresentation and concealment of facts by the respondent, Zoltan Csizmazia, and a significant miscarriage of justice.

The review judge had dismissed her motion, noting that her financial issues were moot due to her bankruptcy and rejecting her claim of lack of notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the review judge's reasons sufficient and affirming that the appellant's bankruptcy rendered her equalization claims moot, thus making it unnecessary to address the fraud allegations.