Enzo Di Iorio

This decision concerns cross-applications to set aside or enforce two arbitral decisions relating to a commercial property dispute between the Moscone Parties and Edenrock Holdings Inc. and Anthony Marrese.

The Moscone Parties sought to set aside or appeal the arbitral decisions on grounds of procedural unfairness, natural justice, and bias, or in the alternative, to remit the matter to a new arbitrator.

The court dismissed the Moscone Parties’ application, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal.

The application by Edenrock and Marrese to enforce the arbitral decisions was granted.

This decision concerns cross-applications to set aside or enforce two arbitral decisions relating to a commercial property dispute between the Moscone Parties and Edenrock Holdings Inc. and Anthony Marrese.

The Moscone Parties sought to set aside or appeal the arbitral decisions on grounds of procedural unfairness, natural justice, and bias, or in the alternative, to remit the matter to a new arbitrator.

The court dismissed the Moscone Parties’ application, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal.

The application by Edenrock and Marrese to enforce the arbitral decisions was granted.

This case involved a family dispute over a corporation and real estate.

The applicants sought validation of a shareholder meeting and a declaration of beneficial ownership of a property.

The respondents cross-applied, disputing the applicants' shareholder status.

The court found in favour of the applicants, confirming their shareholder status, validating the meeting, and declaring them beneficial owners of the property.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, as the successful parties, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants argued their motion was reasonably brought and narrowed issues, and that the requested costs were excessive.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, fixing fees at $41,049 and disbursements at $792.40, totaling $47,280.78 including HST, to be paid within 30 days.

The court applied a 60% partial indemnity rate, considering the significance and complexity of the underlying motion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action concerning a share purchase agreement for a commercial property.

The core issue was whether the defendant vendor used "best efforts" to satisfy a condition precedent requiring all litigation affecting the property to be resolved by the closing date.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance, arguing the condition was not met due to the defendant's breach.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defendant's best efforts, dismissing the summary judgment motion.

The court also declined to discharge the plaintiffs' certificate of pending litigation or set aside an interlocutory injunction, and refused partial summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaim for unpaid rent due to intertwined factual issues.

The applicant sought an order to discharge a mortgage, arguing that the underlying debt had been paid in full.

The respondents contended that an oral agreement existed for the mortgage to be assigned and held as security for the applicant's performance of other contractual obligations.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer of charge to the respondent occurred *before* the final payment to the original mortgagee, meaning the assigned mortgage was not a nil-balance mortgage.

The court determined that the remaining issues, involving the interpretation of an agreement of purchase and sale and a disputed oral agreement, were not suitable for resolution by application under Rule 14.05(3)(e) and (f) or s. 12(8) of the Mortgages Act, and should proceed by way of statement of claim.

A request for a Certificate of Pending Litigation was also dismissed as the title to the land was not in dispute in the application.

Shareholder plaintiffs brought a motion seeking injunctive relief to preserve proceeds from the sale of corporate property pending determination of their claim to the funds.

The defendants requested an adjournment to permit cross-examinations on affidavits and argued that funds remaining in the corporation’s bank account were sufficient to satisfy the claim.

The court granted the adjournment but imposed protective terms requiring the shareholder defendants to repay missing proceeds into the corporate account and prohibiting any withdrawal or dissipation of the full proceeds pending the motion’s return.

The court also ordered that the corporation’s business affairs remain at status quo and that no corporate actions be taken without unanimous shareholder consent or further court order.