Enio Zeppieri

The appellants commenced an action against the respondent, a personal injury lawyer, for damages arising from the non-payment of referral fees allegedly owed under an oral contract spanning 1984 to 2018.

The appellants claimed entitlement to 10% of gross settlements or awards on over 130 referred lawsuits.

The respondent denied the existence of any contract and brought a summary judgment motion relying on denial of contract, alleged illegality, and limitation defences.

The motion judge found genuine issues requiring trial regarding contract existence and legality but granted partial summary judgment on limitation grounds, dismissing claims for lawsuits settling before December 10, 2017.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in characterizing the contract and in failing to recognize that the cause of action did not arise until the relationship ended in 2018.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly determined that the cause of action accrued when each referred lawsuit settled and payment was not made, regardless of whether the full extent of damages was known.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract executed in St. Lucia the day before the parties' wedding.

The court determined that Ontario law applied to the contract.

Although the contract met the formal requirements of the Family Law Act, the court found grounds to set it aside under section 56(4).

The respondent failed to disclose significant assets, including his pension and real property, the applicant did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract, and she signed it under duress related to her immigration status.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the agreement due to substantial unfairness in the bargaining process.

The applicant father sought full indemnity costs from the respondent mother following a successful motion where the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by unilaterally changing the children's school and residence in breach of a separation agreement.

The court reviewed the legal framework for costs, particularly Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules regarding bad faith.

The court found the mother's actions, including concealing information, deceiving the father and the school principal, and breaching the agreement, constituted bad faith.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $21,319.45, emphasizing that such an order was necessary to condemn and discourage the mother's self-help behaviour.

The applicant father sought orders to prevent the respondent mother from unilaterally changing the children's school and residence, contrary to a separation agreement providing for joint decision-making.

The mother had sold her home, purchased a new one further away, and enrolled the children in a new Christian school without the father's consent or prior discussion, despite the children previously attending a Catholic school and the agreement stipulating joint educational decisions.

The court emphasized strong disapproval of self-help remedies in family law, finding the mother's actions detrimental to the children's best interests and a breach of the separation agreement.

The court ordered the children to remain in their current Catholic school and for their school-week residence to be no further than 55 km from the school, maintaining the status quo pending trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendants in a Simplified Procedure action regarding a defaulted promissory note.

The court declined to grant the motion due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including ambiguity regarding service, the omission of the Noting in Default and Statement of Claim, and the improper reliance on hearsay evidence from the plaintiffs' lawyer on central issues.

The plaintiffs were directed to address the deficiencies and re-file the motion.

The defendant sought an urgent injunction to prevent the sale of a mortgaged property by the plaintiffs under a power of sale.

The defendant argued the property was unique, the notice of sale was deficient, and payments were not properly credited.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the property was not unique, the notice of sale was not void due to minor irregularities, and the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, who had a binding agreement of purchase and sale.

A co-owner brought a partial summary judgment motion under the Partition Act seeking sale of three jointly held investment properties and payment of the proceeds into court.

The responding co-owner opposed the motion, arguing that a sale was inconsistent with the parties’ long‑term investment plan, that outstanding accounting claims and counterclaims should be resolved first, and that the moving party’s conduct was malicious and oppressive.

The court held that a co-owner has a prima facie right to partition or sale unless the opposing party establishes exceptional circumstances such as malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct.

Disputes over accounting, alleged debts, and disappointment in future investment plans were insufficient to displace that right.

The motion and a related application by trustees holding title to one property were granted, ordering the sale of the properties.

Adult children challenged their mother’s 2005 will, powers of attorney, and subsequent transfers of property to another sibling, alleging incapacity, undue influence, and misuse of assets.

The court held that the mother had testamentary capacity in 2005 and validly executed the will and powers of attorney.

However, by 2008 she lacked capacity to transfer her home to the respondent son, and that transfer was declared void due to incapacity and undue influence.

The court found she presently lacked capacity to manage property, personal care, grant powers of attorney, or make a will.

Although the 2005 powers of attorney were valid, the court removed the attorney due to misconduct and appointed two other sons as guardians of her person and property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion concerning undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement arising from examinations for discovery.

The court reviewed disputed undertakings and refusals involving several witnesses and determined which questions were relevant and required answers.

Many undertakings and refusals were ordered to be answered where the information was relevant and no sufficient basis for commercial sensitivity or irrelevance had been established.

Some requests were found overly broad or premature and were not required at that stage.

The plaintiffs were found substantially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action after trial, the defendant sought costs relying on a pre‑trial offer to settle served under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The offer proposed payment between $25,000 and $10,000 depending on the timing of acceptance, but it was not accepted.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the offer was merely a nuisance offer and found it constituted a genuine attempt to compromise the dispute.

Applying the principles governing Rule 49 offers where the result at trial is more favourable to the offeror, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sued the defendant umbrella network for breach of contract, breach of good faith, and an accounting of contingent profit commissions following the termination of their brokerage agreement.

The court found that the defendant terminated the agreement in accordance with the 90-day notice provision and acted in good faith, causing no proven financial loss to the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the claim for an accounting, holding that the plaintiff was improperly seeking a 'fishing expedition' to discover if a loss occurred rather than quantifying a known loss.

The action was dismissed.