Emilio Bisceglia

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $6,000.

The court found that the defendants breached their contract and were negligent in the restoration of the plaintiff's vintage Ferrari engines, resulting in significant damages.

The court dismissed the third party claim and awarded damages to the plaintiff for the cost of repairs, but denied claims for loss of capital value and other consequential damages.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the widening and re-routing of Major Mackenzie Drive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, scheduling a seven-day video hearing to commence on November 3, 2025, and setting out the timetable for pre-hearing steps including discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The appellants sought a panel review of a single judge's decision dismissing their motion for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The underlying action against Dominion Lending Centres Inc. and others for alleged mortgage fraud was dismissed by the Superior Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the single judge dismissed the motion solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the single judge explicitly found the grounds of appeal devoid of merit and the lower court's reasons cogent.

The motion for panel review was dismissed with costs.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim in a real estate dispute.

The plaintiff sought to add claims related to a "Development Pause" and "Walk Away Offers" in a failed home purchase.

The court found the Development Pause amendments were statute-barred and dismissed them, but allowed amendments regarding the Walk Away Offers, as they were timely and not prima facie unmeritorious.

The court also ordered further document disclosure and permitted further discovery, deferring a decision on certain refusals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a teleconference to establish a procedural order for a land compensation arbitration under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal ordered the claimants to produce financial statements and tax returns, and issued a procedural order governing the steps leading up to a 14-day hearing scheduled to commence in July 2025.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The court considered a motion by Century 21 Harvest Realty Ltd. and Samuel Kin Yip Chang for security for costs against 5000917 Ontario Inc. in a commercial real estate dispute.

The court reviewed the applicable legal principles under Rule 56.01, including the justness of ordering security, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the merits of the claims.

The court found that 5000917 Ontario Inc. did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and that its claims did not have a clear chance of success on the record.

The court ordered security for costs in the amount of $30,000, to be paid in two installments, and reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the pre-hearing steps and the hearing of a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled for eight days commencing in October 2025.

The order sets out the timetable for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, exchange of expert reports, and other procedural milestones.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and costs decision resulting from four consolidated actions related to a construction project.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence (trucking invoices and dump tickets) without requiring the truck drivers to testify, and by misapprehending evidence regarding soil quality and excavation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly admitted the documents under the principled approach to hearsay through viva voce testimony, especially since the appellants had not objected at trial and had taken an 'all or nothing' approach by alleging fraud.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the poor soil conditions and the necessity of trucking soil offsite.

The appeal regarding the apportionment of storage costs for a Ferrari given as compensation was also dismissed.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment that granted the respondent subcontractor a personal judgment for a structural steel subcontract and a valid lien for a miscellaneous metals subcontract.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that its lien rights for the structural steel subcontract had expired because they were not preserved separately from the miscellaneous metals subcontract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, holding that under the Construction Lien Act, a subcontractor's lien rights do not expire on a subcontract-by-subcontract basis, but rather persist until 45 days after the date of last supply of services or materials to the improvement.

The respondent was granted judgment and lien remedies for the aggregate amount of both subcontracts.

The court determined the scale and quantum of costs following previous motions.

Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing delay and unproven fraud allegations by the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc. The defendants argued for reduced partial indemnity costs due to mixed success and over-lawyering by Primont.

The court found partial indemnity was appropriate, rejecting substantial indemnity as the fraud allegations were not adjudicated on their merits.

The court also reduced Primont's requested quantum due to its unsuccessful abuse of process argument and duplicative work by its multiple timekeepers, ultimately awarding $140,000.00 in partial indemnity costs.

The bankrupt, a former real estate developer, sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee, the Canada Revenue Agency, and several creditors, who argued that the bankrupt's assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar for reasons he could be held responsible for, and that he failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in an asset protection strategy, incurred significant personal liabilities without the means to pay them, and failed to disclose his true post-bankruptcy lifestyle and use of a corporate credit card.

The court declined to refuse the discharge entirely but imposed a substantial conditional order requiring the bankrupt to pay $960,000 and fulfill various outstanding duties.

The moving parties brought a motion under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside or vary the dismissal of their appeal and for an extension of time.

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed their appeal.

The court found that Rule 59.06 is for rare circumstances and not for relitigation of matters already determined.

The moving parties' allegations regarding their lawyer's representation were not accepted and did not alter the uncontroverted fact of their mortgage default.

The motion was deemed an abuse of process, being the latest in a series of unsuccessful attempts to delay enforcement of their mortgage responsibilities.

The motion was dismissed, and the responding parties were awarded costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court declined to make a Rule 2.1 order.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage commenced an action against the defendants, including a court-appointed receiver, for unpaid commissions related to the sale of a property.

The receiver and the debtor company moved to stay the action pursuant to the receivership Appointment Order, while the plaintiff moved to lift the stay.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, based on an email exchange regarding a draft commission agreement, were not frivolous or vexatious.

Balancing the relative prejudice to the parties, the court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow the plaintiff's action to continue.

Preliminary motions regarding the evidentiary record were decided in favour of the receiver.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a property used for electronic billboards.

The Tribunal directed the claimant to amend its Statement of Claim to remove a claim for punitive damages, as such damages are not available under the Act and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award them.

The parties agreed to a procedural order and scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits to determine compensation.

The plaintiff, Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc., from dealing with certain land lots, asserting a contractual right to acquire them.

The defendants moved to dissolve an existing interim injunction, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate undertaking as to damages and made material non-disclosures.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions to dissolve the interim injunction, finding them precluded by Rule 2.02 due to significant delay.

The court then granted the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction, determining there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the enforceability of the agreement and entitlement to specific performance, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm due to the primary defendant's inability to satisfy a damages award, and that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the injunction.

The court also found the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages sufficient given the defendants' failure to quantify their potential damages from delay.

The applicant, Carol Bellamy, a co-Estate Trustee, brought an application for the passing of accounts for the Estate of Jean Ann Ruston.

The respondent, Carolyn Thompson, the sole beneficiary and co-Trustee, raised numerous objections regarding excessive payments to Carol and her husband, Ron Bellamy, and mismanagement of estate funds, including speculative investments.

The court dismissed Carol's defenses of laches and acquiescence, finding her fiduciary duties to the sole beneficiary paramount.

The court ordered Carol to repay $318,918.27 to the Estate for excessive compensation and reimbursements, and directed several other objections to proceed to trial due to insufficient documentation and credibility issues.

Following a successful motion by the defendant law firm for a declaration that lawyer-client privilege had been waived by co-defendants in a proposed class action, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The opposing defendants argued for no costs or a reduced amount, citing the novel circumstances and section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the motion was of considerable strategic importance and not a test case justifying a departure from normal costs rules.

Costs were fixed at $16,000 all-inclusive, split equally between the two groups of opposing defendants.

In a proposed class action concerning a failed condominium development, the plaintiff alleged professional negligence against Blaney McMurtry LLP, a law firm that prepared investment instruments.

Blaney McMurtry LLP brought a motion for a declaration that solicitor-client privilege with its co-defendants had been waived.

The court found that several co-defendants, including those who had settled with the plaintiff and provided an affidavit criticizing the law firm's work, had impliedly waived privilege.

This waiver occurred because they made the quality of legal advice a material issue in the litigation, thereby making it unfair and inconsistent to maintain privilege.

The motion for a declaration of waiver was granted.