Evelyn Susan Perez Youssoufian

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay the respondent $25,000 for the unreturned balance of a deposit from a rescinded business purchase agreement.

The trial judge pierced the corporate veil, finding the appellant companies acted as one entity.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the trial judge erred in piercing the corporate veil and failing to enforce a residential lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence and the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of multiple appeals.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario had previously dismissed appeals brought by the appellants and invited submissions on costs.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement on costs.

The endorsement formalizes this agreement, ordering the appellant Lina Bertasiene to pay $7,500 in costs to the Kvyetko respondents, and appellants Lina Bertasiene and Singaras Bertasius to pay $14,700 for the appeal and an additional $5,000 for a fresh evidence motion to the Ilioukevitch respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals from summary judgments enforcing multiple mortgages against the appellants.

The appellants challenged the judgments on various grounds, including allegations of criminal interest rates, invalid mortgage registration, improper crediting of payments, and mortgage fraud, including a claim of forged signatures.

The Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the mortgages were valid and enforceable, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Court also rejected a request to introduce new evidence (handwriting expert report) on appeal due to lack of diligence.

Parkland Corporation sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent SRAA Inc. and 1064110 Ontario Ltd. from unilaterally terminating their gas station leases and subleases to re-lease the properties to a competitor selling Esso brand fuel.

The respondents argued the agreements were essentially fuel supply contracts and that they were operating at a loss.

The court found that the respondents deliberately breached their contracts and that Parkland would suffer irreparable harm from the loss of control over the sites.

The court granted the interlocutory injunctions, enforcing the leases and the negative covenants in the subleases pending a final determination.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting of default in an action for unpaid rent and other damages under a commercial lease.

The plaintiff had noted the defendants in default without notifying their counsel, despite knowing they were represented.

The court found that while the defendants delayed in responding to the claim, the plaintiff's failure to provide a courtesy copy or follow up was contrary to the principles of civility.

The court set aside the noting of default, emphasizing that cases should be decided on their merits rather than technical defaults, and awarded costs to the defendants.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondents relief for breach of a real estate purchase agreement.

The appellants had breached an agreement to purchase property at 800 Sales Court, Milton, Ontario, and their deposit was forfeited.

The appellants argued on appeal that the respondents failed to mitigate their loss by refusing the appellants' offer to complete the transaction at a reduced price.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents had no obligation to mitigate prior to the appellants' breach and were not required to give the appellants an opportunity to match a third-party offer after the property was re-listed.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought an action regarding the proceeds from the sale of a property jointly developed by the deceased and the defendant, her former common-law partner.

The defendant relied on a cohabitation agreement that provided property division would be determined solely by legal ownership.

The plaintiff relied on a subsequent oral property development agreement, confirmed in writing by the defendant, that provided for the return of investments and equal sharing of profits.

The court found that neither party understood the cohabitation agreement to apply to their property development activities and set it aside in part under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3,145,682.88 based on the property development agreement.

Following a motion in which the plaintiffs were completely successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the defendants’ extensive submissions that went beyond the jurisdictional issues raised by the motion and addressed the merits of the case.

Applying the principles governing costs awards and recognizing the additional time and materials used by the defendants, the court held that costs somewhat above the partial indemnity scale were appropriate.

The plaintiffs were awarded a fixed all-inclusive costs amount payable within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action based on a lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and abuse of process.

The plaintiffs alleged they released their interest in Ontario lands based on fraudulent misrepresentations regarding real estate and escrow funds in Dubai.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, noting the alleged fraud occurred in Ontario, the contract was governed by Ontario law, and the defendants attorned to the jurisdiction by arguing the merits of the claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Ontario was the appropriate forum and the claim was not an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed an order allowing the respondent to enforce an arbitration award.

The appellant argued that enforcement should be refused on public policy grounds under art. 36(1)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law because the respondent had brought related proceedings in the United Kingdom.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a legal dispute over choice of law and legal rights does not rise to the level of a public policy violation sufficient to defeat the enforcement of an arbitration award.