Filipe A. Mendes

The applicant beneficiary sought to pass over the named estate trustees and claimed damages against one trustee for breach of fiduciary duty, devastavit, and unjust enrichment.

The respondent trustee argued there was a binding settlement agreement and that the applicant lacked standing.

The court found no binding settlement agreement, as the respondent's acceptance was a counter-offer.

The court held the applicant had standing as a beneficiary to sue the trustee.

However, the court dismissed the damages claims, finding insufficient evidence that the trustee mismanaged the estate or was unjustly enriched.

A third party was appointed as estate trustee on consent.

The moving defendants sought an interlocutory or interim injunction restraining a mortgagee from completing a power of sale of a residential property that was also alleged to be a matrimonial home.

They argued the underlying promissory note and mortgage were unconscionable, the spouse had not validly consented to the encumbrance, and the statutory notice requirements under the Mortgages Act were not met.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the court held that most asserted grounds did not raise a serious issue to be tried, found no irreparable harm because any loss was compensable in damages, and concluded the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagee and the third-party purchaser.

The motion was dismissed and the sale was permitted to proceed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to respond to her request for records within 30 days and that the records provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent eventually provided all requested records with appropriate redactions to protect other owners' privacy, the board meeting minutes were inadequate under subsection 55(1) of the Condominium Act.

The minutes were kept in a continuously edited spreadsheet and lacked basic details such as attendance, quorum, and voting records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to maintain adequate records and pay the applicant's $200 filing fee, but declined to order a penalty as the delay was due to inexperience rather than a refusal without reasonable excuse.

The defendants 1995636 Ontario Inc. and Lisa Bailey brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to the plaintiff's alleged failure to timely disclose multiple settlement agreements with another defendant, 2495048 Ontario Inc. In the alternative, they sought severance of claims against them, arguing their involvement was discrete.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the undisclosed agreements did not "entirely alter the landscape of the litigation" or change the adversarial position of the parties into a cooperative one.

The court also dismissed the motion for severance, determining that the test for joinder was met due to common questions of fact and law and interconnectedness between the claims across multiple properties, promoting efficiency and avoiding inconsistent judgments.

The plaintiff, Debt Aid Consulting Inc., a debt relief marketing company, sued the defendant, Financial Rescue LLC, a competitor, alleging breaches of the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, the Business Names Act, and the Competition Act, and tortious interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant was not entitled to conduct business or advertise in Canada, and damages for lost business and increased advertising costs.

The court found that the defendant's activities were marketing services and did not fall within the definitions of a "collection agency" or "debt settlement service" under the CDSSA.

The court also found no evidence of false or misleading representations under the Competition Act or the elements required for intentional interference with economic relations.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The respondent tow truck driver was acquitted of municipal by-law offences for offering services and positioning his truck within 200 metres of an accident scene.

The lower courts found the municipal by-law inconsistent with s. 177(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which exempts towing services from a general prohibition on commercial solicitation on roadways in an emergency.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 177(3) merely creates an exception to a prohibition and does not grant paramount permission to attend accident scenes.

The by-law was not inconsistent with the HTA.

Convictions were entered and fines imposed.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant property owners for unpaid invoices and extra work related to the installation of a septic system and backfilling of a dog kennel.

The defendants counterclaimed for deficiencies and incomplete work.

The court found that the plaintiff completed the backfill contract and was entitled to payment for it and for snow removal, but dismissed claims for other extras.

The court also allowed the defendants' counterclaim in part, awarding them $5,000 to complete the septic system.

After set-off, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff $5,578.50.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action.

The plaintiff, 1658161 Ontario Inc., sought costs after obtaining partial summary judgment, arguing the motion was necessary due to the defendant's, Dianne Marie Carroll's, failure to pay and refusal to acknowledge possession rights.

The defendant opposed, claiming she had consented to part of the judgment.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that costs should be fixed at this stage rather than reserved for trial.

The plaintiff's costs claim was reduced by one-third for the summary judgment motion, and the defendant was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant, The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal that was seven and a half months overdue.

The appellant failed to take steps to perfect the appeal until prompted by the respondents and the registrar, and subsequent attempts to file were rejected due to technical deficiencies.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that despite the preference for deciding cases on their merits, the appellant's repeated failure to comply with rules and procedures caused prejudice to the respondents and did not serve the justice of the case.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to direct the registration of a tax deed, the successful responding parties sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued that the costs awarded should be limited to the amount of its own legal costs in bringing the application, relying on the principle that the unsuccessful party's costs can indicate the parties' expectations.

The court rejected this argument, noting that the application posed a significant financial risk to the responding parties, justifying their higher costs.

The court fixed costs at $22,000 for the municipality and $11,000 for the mortgagee.

The applicant, 2494044 Ontario Inc., sought an order directing Norfolk County to register a tax deed for a commercial property after being the highest tenderer in a tax sale.

The County cancelled the tax sale after the previous mortgagee paid the outstanding taxes.

The court found that the County Treasurer acted reasonably in exercising discretion under section 382(6)(a) of the Municipal Act to cancel the tax sale, as it was not in the municipality's financial interest to continue.

The application was dismissed, affirming the Treasurer's decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her professional negligence action against her former lawyers.

Her action was dismissed under Rule 57.03(2) after she failed to pay a $10,400 costs award from an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge properly balanced the competing interests, noting the appellant provided no evidence of her alleged impecuniosity or the merits of her claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs of $7,549.16.

The respondents argued the amount was not proportional to the $25,000 in dispute and requested costs be awarded only against two of the three respondents.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount reasonable and proportionate, noting the complexity of the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the appellant in the requested amount against all respondents.

The purchasers of a residential property and the vendor brought a Small Claims Court action against the vendor's real estate agent and the contractor hired by the vendor to perform renovations.

The trial judge awarded damages against both the agent and the contractor for negligent misrepresentation and defective work.

The contractor appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by treating the contractor as an agent and finding a special relationship where none existed.

The contractor had no contractual relationship with the purchasers, and his liability was solely to the vendor, who had suffered no damages.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from their detention and search by police officers.

The officers had detained, handcuffed, and searched the appellants while investigating a break and enter, despite the appellants not matching the suspect descriptions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding there were reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

The court also found the appellants were de facto arrested, not merely detained.

The court awarded each appellant $500 in damages for false arrest and imprisonment.

The appellants appealed a small claims court decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from their detention and search by police officers.

The officers were investigating a break and enter and detained the appellants as they walked past the scene.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding there were reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

The court also found the appellants were de facto arrested, not merely detained.

However, the court upheld the finding that the search for weapons was reasonable.

The appellants were each awarded $500 in damages for false arrest and imprisonment.

Following a successful civil action involving police conduct and Charter-related issues, the court addressed the plaintiff’s request for costs.

The plaintiff sought legal fees exceeding the damages award obtained at trial.

The court found the requested fees disproportionate to the modest recovery and concluded the matter, while important, was not legally complex.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the hourly rate and compensable hours, finding the file had been over-lawyered.

Costs were awarded at a reduced amount reflecting proportionality while acknowledging the significance of the issues and imbalance in bargaining power.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the parties were to share a lottery prize equally based on their established practice and relationship.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact regarding a central phone call and the parties' confirmatory conduct were entirely open to him and reasonable.