Eugenia (Gina) Papageorgiou

This costs endorsement addresses the plaintiff’s entitlement to costs following a successful motion for exemption from mandatory mediation and related matters.

The court reviews the scale and quantum of costs, the relevance of expert evidence, the impact of funding by the Court Challenges Project, and the apportionment of costs between motions.

The court ultimately awards costs to the plaintiff, finding them reasonable and incidental to the proceeding.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion to amend a statement of claim and related motions to strike in a commercial dispute.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, with the defendants voluntarily withdrawing an allegation of similar fact evidence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded only partial indemnity costs, reduced to $10,000, due to the plaintiffs' own conduct and drafting issues that contributed to the need for the motions and adjournments.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale of a jointly owned property, ordering that 50% of the proceeds be released to the applicant and that she be reimbursed for funeral and carrying costs.

The respondents' objections, including claims of loans and entitlement to a greater share, were rejected due to lack of evidence and legal standing.

The court found the applicant was entitled to her share as a 50% title owner, and the respondents' claims, if any, would be against the estate, not the applicant's share.

The Applicants, commercial landlords, sought a permanent injunction against the Developer and the Church regarding the use of a right-of-way (ROW) over a laneway behind their properties.

The court found that the Developer’s construction activities, including staging, parking, and storage, substantially interfered with the Applicants’ use of the ROW, particularly for parking and access by tenants and customers.

The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Developer from obstructing the laneway and from allowing its workers to park directly behind the Applicants’ units, but declined to order removal of all construction equipment due to the stage of construction and delay in seeking relief.

The applicants, purchasers of units in a townhouse complex, sought a declaration that the developer was not entitled to charge them certain adjustment amounts on closing under their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the developer was not entitled to pass on utility infrastructure costs paid to contractors, trades, and other third parties, but only those paid to the municipality or utility service providers, and for meter installation.

The court also found the developer was not entitled to charge $800 for an extension of the closing date.

The application was granted, and a reference on damages was directed.

The court dismissed Zenith’s appeal of an arbitrator’s decision finding it the priority insurer for accident benefits under Ontario’s Insurance Act.

The decision clarifies that an insurer licensed in Ontario is subject to Ontario’s priority rules for accidents occurring in Ontario, even if the policy was issued elsewhere, due to reciprocal legislative provisions.

The court distinguished Travelers v. CAA and similar cases, emphasizing that territorial overreach does not occur where the accident is in Ontario and the insurer is licensed in Ontario.

The court also addressed the interplay between Ontario and Alberta insurance legislation and the effect of reciprocal undertakings and licensing conditions.

The court determined the appropriate prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates following an award of damages and punitive damages to the plaintiff for the improper registration of a certificate of pending litigation.

The court found that prejudgment interest should run from the date the certificate was registered, calculated at an average rate reflecting market changes, and that post-judgment interest applies to all amounts owing under the order, including costs.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The court found Benabdallah Chouchaoui in contempt of a permanent injunction order prohibiting him and his company from holding out as engineers, engaging in the practice of professional engineering, or using an engineering seal without proper authorization under the Professional Engineers Act.

The decision details a pattern of non-compliance, including misuse of another engineer’s seal, failure to comply with court-ordered procedures, and evasive conduct.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

The court dismissed the respondents’ motion to stay an application brought by Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, finding that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate, that the respondents had taken substantive steps in the litigation, and that they had moved with undue delay in seeking a stay.

The decision interprets the requirements for a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and applies recent appellate and Supreme Court authority on the prerequisites for a stay and the effect of participation in litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal and a motion for contempt against Susan Stevens for breaching court orders related to the disposition of a recreational vehicle (RV) subject to a Mareva injunction.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of them, and that she intentionally breached them by selling the RV.

The court found Ms. Stevens in contempt, ordered her to provide documentation and pay over the proceeds, and adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt.

This ruling addresses requested changes to the jury charge in a medical negligence trial concerning the standard of care and the admissibility and weight of evidence regarding minority medical practice, usual practice, and the distinction between buttock numbness and saddle anaesthesia.

The court reviews the law on minority practice, the role of expert evidence, and the proper approach to weighing conflicting testimony, ultimately declining to make certain amendments requested by the defendant and clarifying the law for the jury.

This decision addresses the applications of various organizations to intervene in a constitutional challenge regarding migrant access to health care in Canada.

The court grants leave to several coalitions and organizations to intervene as friends of the court, with some permitted to review productions and attend discovery.

The court also addresses the scope of the deemed undertaking rule, the discretion to relieve intervenors from costs, and the exemption of the matter from mandatory mediation.

The ruling clarifies the criteria for intervention, the rights of intervenors, and the balancing of public interest and litigation efficiency.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought reconsideration of a prior decision granting the Migrant Worker Coalition leave to intervene as a friend of the court.

Canada argued that the court's initial decision was based on the erroneous factual assumption that the deceased plaintiff had entered Canada on an authorized work permit, when she had actually entered as a visitor and overstayed.

Justice Papageorgiou amended the factual error in the reasons but maintained the decision to grant the Coalition intervenor status.

The court concluded that the deceased's precarious situation of working without status after her visitor visa expired remained highly analogous to the precarious circumstances and healthcare access challenges faced by migrant workers.

The plaintiff, Heywood Innovative Solutions Inc., brought an action against the defendant, The State Group Inc., seeking payment of outstanding invoices for pipeline coating inspection services.

The defendant counterclaimed, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to provide daily inspection reports constituted a fundamental breach of contract that deprived them of the contract's benefit.

The court found that while the contract did require the daily reports and the plaintiff breached this term, it did not amount to a fundamental breach.

Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding invoices, subject to a set-off for damages caused by the plaintiff's breach, resulting in a net award of $164,577.54 to the plaintiff.

This costs endorsement follows summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Samuel Stern, in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court awards substantial indemnity costs of $62,817.10 to the plaintiff, finding the defendant’s conduct intentionally delayed the proceedings and wasted time and expense.

The court reviews the contractual entitlement to costs, the relevant statutory and case law principles, and the proportionality of the costs award.

The case concerns whether an assessor appointed under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 must provide disclosure of materials collected and reviewed prior to a capacity assessment, and whether the assessor and the Consent and Capacity Board considered the correct factors relevant to the management of property.

The court held that there is no legal obligation for the assessor to provide such disclosure in advance, and that the Board did not err in its application of the legal test for capacity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The decision concerns a failed real estate transaction in which the plaintiff, Anthony Gyimah, sought rescission and damages after refusing to close on a property purchase due to a dispute over the delivery of keys.

The court found that the plaintiff breached the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) by refusing to close, as the keys were made available for pickup in Cochrane and there was no contractual requirement for delivery to Toronto.

The court awarded the defendant Church damages of $219.61 and ordered repayment to the plaintiff of the balance of funds held in trust, with interest earned, totaling $70,142.23.

The case against the Church’s lawyer, Andre Lehoux, was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Samuel Stern, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Mehran Moeinifar, for an unpaid $1,000,000 loan secured by a mortgage and a personal guarantee.

The court granted summary judgment in the amount of $1,445,673.52 (including interest), finding no genuine issue for trial.

The defendant’s arguments regarding lack of Ontario jurisdiction and forum non conveniens were rejected, as the defendant had attorned to Ontario’s jurisdiction and the relevant contracts were made in Ontario.

The court found the guarantee enforceable and the defendant liable.

The plaintiff, YF Capital Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, Harrison Frank Roy and Trung Tran, in relation to a mortgage loan over 519-7 Grenville St., Toronto.

The defendants failed to defend the proceeding and were noted in default.

The court granted judgment in the amount of $896,275.67, an order for possession, and a writ of possession, but declined to order a writ of seizure and sale, finding a court order unnecessary for that relief.

The court also awarded costs in the amount of $20,000 and pre- and post-judgment interest at the contract rate of 19%.