Frank Pinizzotto

The applicant son brought an urgent motion to suspend the 2024 powers of attorney appointing the respondent daughter as the attorney for property and personal care for their incapable mother.

The applicant alleged elder abuse and neglect by the respondent.

The court found the applicant's evidence of misconduct unreliable and often contradicted by medical and functional assessments.

Applying the test for terminating a power of attorney, the court held the applicant failed to show strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect.

The motion was dismissed on an interim interim basis, the 2024 powers of attorney remained in force, and the mother was permitted to return to the respondent's care.

The respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $45,000.

The decision concerns an estate dispute between Glen Last and Craig Last (personally and as joint Estate Trustee for the Estate of Jacqueline Last), with TD Canada Trust as a respondent.

Glen alleged that Craig misappropriated significant estate assets and failed to account for his management of the estate, seeking a reduction of Craig’s share and other relief.

The court found that Craig failed to provide a proper accounting, drew an adverse inference, and ordered a substantial reduction of Craig’s share of the estate, as well as costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants and respondents entered into a business arrangement to open an optometry clinic, but failed to agree on final terms.

The applicant locked the respondent out of the business and ceased paying rent.

The court found the applicant's unilateral ouster of the respondent constituted oppression.

The applicant was ordered to repay the respondent's surplus capital contribution and the parties were directed to appoint an appraiser to determine fair market rent owed since the lockout.

The plaintiff, Conquest Steel Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to recover funds allegedly owed by the defendant, Polar Racking Inc., for custom-manufactured products.

The motion also sought leave to amend the title of proceedings to reflect the plaintiff's name change.

The court granted leave to amend the title and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for undisputed invoiced amounts and for uninvoiced products where the defendant had repudiated the contracts.

However, the plaintiff's claims for lost profit on a terminated purchase order and for storage fees were dismissed due to insufficient proof of damages and lack of contractual entitlement, respectively.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned corporation, brought an oppression application against his two sisters, the other shareholders.

The parties were deadlocked over the sale of the corporation's main assets, two commercial properties.

On a short motion prior to the hearing of the main oppression application, the applicant sought an order for an appraisal of the properties.

The respondents opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction prior to an oppression finding.

The court ordered the corporation to fund an appraisal, finding it could help break the logjam between the siblings and shed light on the value of the properties.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The appellants (defendants in the original action) had repeatedly delayed filing a defence, despite extensions and changes in counsel.

The motion judge applied the principles for setting aside a noting in default, considering the full context, including the parties' behaviour and reasons for delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed given the defendants' prolonged non-compliance.

This motion concerned the defendants' application to set aside a noting of default in a simplified procedure action.

The court reviewed the defendants' extensive and unexplained delays in filing a defence, noting a pattern of missed deadlines and a two-month delay in retaining new counsel after terminating previous counsel.

Despite the general preference for resolving disputes on their merits, the court found the defendants' conduct demonstrated "shocking laxity" and deliberate delay.

The motion to set aside the noting of default was dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The Applicant landlord sought to terminate a commercial lease and obtain a Writ of Possession, arguing the Respondent tenant failed to timely exercise its renewal option and breached lease terms.

The Respondent cross-applied for a declaration of valid renewal or relief from forfeiture.

The court found the tenant's renewal notice was submitted out of time, rendering it null and void, and dismissed the tenant's request for equitable relief from forfeiture, emphasizing strict compliance with renewal provisions in commercial leases.