E. Tingley

The plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the defendant Francesco Fiore, brought an action to unwind the transfers of a residential property from Francesco to his son, and subsequently to his daughter.

The plaintiff alleged the transfers were fraudulent conveyances or created a resulting or express trust to shield the property from creditors.

The court found the action was not statute-barred as the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

While the court did not find sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent or an express trust, it concluded that the transfers lacked consideration and that Francesco retained control and beneficial ownership of the property.

The court declared a resulting trust and ordered the reappointment of a bankruptcy trustee to sell the property and pay creditors.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for wrongful termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord had unilaterally increased the minimum and additional rent shortly after purchasing the building, and terminated the lease when the tenant refused to pay the increased amounts.

The court found that the tenant was not in breach of the lease, as the rent increases were not authorized by the lease terms and the landlord was estopped from changing the rent calculation method.

The court also held that the individual plaintiff could claim damages for the loss of value of her shares in the operating company, as the company was not a party to the lease and had no independent cause of action.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for the loss of the business and return of the deposit.

In supplementary reasons addressing costs following earlier reasons under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicant mortgage lender sought full indemnity costs based on contractual mortgage provisions.

The court confirmed that while contractual entitlement to full indemnity costs exists, the court retains supervisory authority to ensure the amounts claimed are fair and reasonable.

The applicant’s bill of costs was reduced for inefficiencies, including excessive research time and the use of senior counsel for work that could have been delegated or billed at a lower rate.

Additional reductions were made for excessive preparation time on reply materials.

The court ultimately fixed reasonable full indemnity costs and rejected arguments for further reductions based on partial success or for awarding costs to another resisting respondent.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay an Ontario action arising from a commercial distribution agreement.

The agreement contained a clause selecting German law and requiring binding arbitration through the Frankfurt Chamber of Commerce for “any disputes.” The court held that such forum selection and arbitration clauses are presumptively enforceable and that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating “strong cause” to avoid enforcement.

The plaintiff’s allegations of egregious contractual and tortious conduct did not constitute strong cause, as merits‑based arguments cannot defeat a forum selection clause.

The court further held that the clause applied to related tort claims and to individual defendants whose alleged conduct was intertwined with the contractual dispute.