Emilio Bisceglia

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of portions of its property by the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties previously advised the Tribunal that a settlement in principle had been reached, leading to the cancellation of the scheduled hearing.

At a subsequent Case Management Conference, the parties confirmed that Minutes of Settlement were drafted but not yet signed.

The Tribunal declined the claimant's request to schedule a further Case Management Conference in two weeks, finding it an unproductive use of resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to advise when binding Minutes of Settlement are executed, holding the file in abeyance until then or until a status report is provided by September 1, 2022.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Shaw J. on September 14, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 all-inclusive to the responding party.

The plaintiff tenant sought immediate relief from forfeiture and a mandatory injunction to restore its commercial tenancy after the defendant landlord terminated the lease due to the tenant's use of the premises, which rendered the property uninsurable without a sprinkler system upgrade.

The court found the tenant was in breach of the lease for failing to upgrade the sprinkler system, as this cost was attributable to their specific hazardous use under the "net lease" terms.

The court dismissed the tenant's request for a mandatory injunction but granted temporary relief from forfeiture for 30 days, allowing the tenant to remedy the breach by installing an upgraded sprinkler system at its own cost or through an agreed arrangement with the landlord.

Operations were prohibited until the system was installed and approved by an insurer.

The plaintiffs, minority shareholders of two companies that owned marinas, sought leave to bring a derivative action against the companies' solicitor regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the marinas.

The plaintiffs alleged the solicitor improperly distributed the funds to the majority shareholder or companies controlled by him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs met the first three parts of the test for a derivative action, they failed to demonstrate that the proposed action was in the best interests of the companies, as there was no evidence the companies suffered a loss and the plaintiffs' true claim was personal.

Following a 19-day construction lien trial, a procedural dispute arose regarding closing submissions.

The defendant filed a surrebuttal that raised a new defence under the Limitations Act, 2002, and implicitly alleged professional negligence against the plaintiff's counsel.

The plaintiff requested a right of reply.

The court granted the plaintiff a limited right of reply, finding that trial fairness dictated the plaintiff must have an opportunity to respond to a newly raised, unpleaded limitations defence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals arising from cross-examinations on affidavits filed by the defendant in support of her pending anti-SLAPP motion.

The underlying action involves claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office against a municipal councillor.

The court applied the test for relevance on a motion, balancing the scope of the anti-SLAPP motion with the principle of proportionality.

The court ordered the defendant to answer certain narrowed questions regarding her communications with third parties and the police, but dismissed overbroad requests and upheld solicitor-client privilege regarding a non-party lawyer's communications.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement secured by a consent to judgment for $39,000.

The defendant defaulted after paying $1,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on the consent.

The court granted the motion, ordering judgment for the remaining $38,000 plus $320 in costs.

The respondent in an application regarding the interpretation of settlement agreements brought a motion to convert the application into an action and consolidate it with an existing 2018 action between the parties.

The underlying dispute involved a condominium development, easements, and construction on abutting properties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the discrete issues of contract interpretation could be resolved on a written record without viva voce evidence, and that delaying the application to be heard with the 2018 action would cause undue prejudice and delay to the construction project.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff recovered an investment, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $30,394.56, which the defendants argued was disproportionately high compared to actual fees paid.

Applying the principles of proportionality and fairness, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $23,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff developer regarding a defaulted agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court noted the defendants pursued a defence and counterclaim identical to one recently dismissed by the Court of Appeal in a related case.

Despite this, the plaintiff only sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $49,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for his 15-year-old daughter to attend reunification therapy and for equal parenting time, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, finding no expert evidence to support the allegations of alienation and noting the lack of a detailed therapy proposal.

Relying on a Voice of the Child report indicating the daughter's reluctance to spend time with the father due to his historical lack of involvement, the court ordered limited parenting time subject entirely to the daughter's wishes.

The plaintiff vendor brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant purchasers for failing to close on a luxury home.

The defendants argued they did not understand the agreement due to a language barrier and were misled about environmental issues on the property.

The court rejected these defenses, finding the defendants were experienced buyers who had a bilingual real estate agent and declined legal advice.

The court granted judgment for the plaintiff for the loss on resale and proven carrying costs, totaling $584,306.

The plaintiff invested $100,000 in a mortgage syndication administered by the defendant corporation.

The defendant, acting as the plaintiff's agent, discharged the mortgage on the original project lands and transferred it to another property without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent.

The plaintiff lost her investment when the related companies entered CCAA proceedings.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found that while the defendant was not a borrower obligated to repay the loan, it breached the subscription agreement by transferring the mortgage without authorization.

The plaintiff was awarded damages of $81,250, representing her initial investment less interest payments received.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendants' law firm from the record due to a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the plaintiff in labour and employment matters, during which it received confidential information relevant to the current litigation involving alleged employee poaching by the defendants.

The court found that the law firm received relevant confidential information, the matters were sufficiently related, and the confidentiality screens implemented were inadequate.

The motion to remove the law firm was granted to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff was awarded $154,164.26, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $20,427.68.

The defendants argued for no costs due to divided success, as the plaintiff had originally claimed $215,459.46, or alternatively a reduction in the quantum.

The court rejected the divided success argument, noting the plaintiff was the successful party, and awarded costs to the plaintiff modestly reduced to $19,250.

The applicants, a syndicate of lenders and various construction trades, sought declarations that the respondent surety could not rescind performance and payment bonds issued for a hospital redevelopment project.

The surety had discovered alleged fraud and collusion in the procurement process and commenced a separate action for rescission.

The applicants argued they were innocent third parties whose rights under the bonds could not be defeated by the alleged fraud of the principals.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants' rights were derivative of the principals and that rescission remained a possible equitable remedy that must be determined on a full factual record at trial.

The plaintiff home builder brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers who failed to close a real estate transaction due to an inability to obtain financing in a declining market.

The plaintiff resold the property at a loss and sued for the difference in sale prices and carrying costs.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages by refusing to take back a mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no failure to mitigate, as a vendor is not obliged to accept revised terms from a defaulting purchaser.

Damages were awarded for the loss in value and carrying costs, excluding interest on a loan not proven to be connected to the property.

The plaintiffs sought costs thrown away after the trial was adjourned due to the defendant's late filing of an expert report and failure to comply with court orders.

The court found that the defendant's dilatory conduct necessitated several motions and case conferences, ultimately delaying the trial.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $11,983.48, payable within 21 days.

In a pre-trial motion for an action concerning latent structural defects in a residential property, the plaintiffs moved to strike the self-represented defendant's defence for failing to comply with a Trial Management Report and to exclude a late expert report.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for leave to file the late expert report and to call more than three experts.

The court declined to strike the defence, finding it a disproportionate remedy.

The court granted the defendant leave to file the late expert report under Rule 53.08, concluding that any prejudice to the plaintiffs could be cured by adjusting the trial schedule to allow them to respond.

At a case conference, the Varone Parties sought compliance with a previous discovery plan order made by Master Muir, which the Concord Adex Parties had failed to meet.

The court ordered the Concord Adex Parties to serve their Affidavit of Documents within 10 days and varied the litigation timetable accordingly.

The court also provided directions on how to address an undetermined costs issue from the previous motion, as Master Muir had passed away before rendering his decision on costs.