Gary Michael Caplan

The plaintiffs sued for specific performance of an abortive real estate transaction after failing to close on the scheduled date due to a loss of financing.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the defendants did not agree to extend the closing date and were not acting in bad faith by insisting on the contractually agreed closing date.

The plaintiffs were not ready, willing, and able to close, and the defendants validly terminated the agreement and forfeited the deposit.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The defendant, Mer Mechanical Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' subrogated claim was barred by a builder's risk policy with a waiver of subrogation.

The policy covered "occurrence" if the "inception of the event causing the loss" occurred during the coverage period.

The loss resulted from a faucet detachment after the policy expired, which the defendant attributed to "creep/stress relaxation" during installation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the "inception of the event" (faucet detachment) occurred after the policy expired, distinguishing it from the "cause" (improper installation).

The court emphasized that builder's risk policies primarily cover ongoing construction, and the insurable interest ceases upon project completion.

This endorsement provides procedural directions for a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction.

The court sets a firm deadline for the self-represented respondent to file her response to the plaintiffs' position, noting that an earlier informal deadline was missed.

The interim injunction remains in effect pending the hearing of the interlocutory injunction motion.

This endorsement addresses three procedural matters raised by Ms. Atas via correspondence.

The court clarifies that a costs decision on a s.140 application will be released later in the summer, advises that an appeal can be perfected on the existing record, confirms an order setting aside a noting in default has been signed, and directs that issues regarding personal property disposal should be raised at the next case conference, not through correspondence.

This case management endorsement addresses the status of an interlocutory injunction motion in defamation proceedings.

The court granted an extension to the plaintiffs for providing information regarding the scheduling of their interlocutory injunction motion, accepting counsel's explanation for the delay.

The self-represented defendant's request to summarily set aside the interim injunction was dismissed, as the court noted that extensive evidence had been filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant had not yet served responding materials.

The court also reiterated that a previous s.140 vexatious litigant order against the defendant remains in effect and is not open to debate in this court pending appeal.

Directions were provided for the defendant to propose a timetable for responding to the injunction motion.

This endorsement addresses multiple ongoing proceedings involving Nadire Atas, providing case management directions.

Key issues include Ms. Atas's late filing of an agenda, the transfer of personal property from a storage locker, the continuation of various claims against the Chahals and Sutton Group Realty, the management of three defamation actions (including pleadings, counterclaims, and injunctions), and the resolution of mortgage enforcement costs for Peoples Trust.

The court also addresses collateral attacks on previous judgments and outstanding solicitors' fees.

A significant directive is issued regarding Ms. Atas's access to transcripts, conditional on a payment towards outstanding costs owed to Peoples Trust due to her history of non-payment.

The applicants requested an urgent, ex parte case conference and interim relief regarding a fresh proceeding alleging the respondent breached an injunction through a severe internet attack.

The court declined to proceed without notice to the respondent, instead scheduling a mandatory urgent case conference and directing the applicants to serve the respondent with the materials.

In the context of numerous proceedings involving a vexatious litigant, the respondent sought the recusal of the case management judge and failed to comply with previous court directions, citing an intention to appeal.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction, noted that the judgment is not stayed pending appeal without a specific order from the Court of Appeal, and directed the respondent to comply with the required materials by a final deadline, failing which the underlying litigation would proceed based on her non-compliance.

The plaintiff lawyer brought an action against his former client for unpaid legal fees totaling $37,324.55.

The defendant client defended the claim and brought a counter-claim for $500,000, alleging professional negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court reviewed the history of the 17 files the plaintiff handled for the defendant and applied the Cohen v. Kealey factors to assess the reasonableness of the fees.

The court found no evidence to support the counter-claim and dismissed it.

The plaintiff was awarded $20,450.52 for services rendered and unpaid, after accounting for some set-offs and unbilled descriptions.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

He argued the application judge erred by denying his request for an adjournment due to illness and by failing to consider his self-represented status, language barriers, and alleged brain injury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge reasonably exercised his discretion to deny the adjournment given the appellant's history of unpaid costs and lack of proper medical evidence.

The Court also found no error in the application judge's decision to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant based on his repeated, meritless litigation against his former lawyers.

In ongoing case-managed proceedings involving a proposed vexatious litigant declaration under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, the applicant sought the case management judge’s recusal and challenged portions of affidavit evidence as inadmissible hearsay.

The court held that evidentiary questions regarding the scope of cross-examination and admissibility should be determined by the judge hearing the substantive s. 140 application.

The judge concluded that, as the assigned case management judge overseeing all related proceedings, he had jurisdiction to hear the s. 140 application and that doing so was the most practical and proportionate course.

The court rejected arguments that prior interlocutory rulings created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion for recusal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs agreed to purchase a commercial property from the defendants, intending to use the entire space as a restaurant.

The plaintiffs refused to close the transaction after discovering zoning restrictions limited restaurant use to half the space.

They sued for the return of their deposit and damages, alleging the vendor made oral representations and a collateral agreement guaranteeing the zoning and promising to return the deposit if issues arose.

The vendor counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding they did not reasonably rely on the vendor's representations and that the written agreement expressly excluded collateral agreements.

The vendor's counterclaim was allowed, and damages were awarded based on the property's subsequent sale by the mortgagee.

Following the dismissal of two libel actions arising from statements made during a municipal election campaign, the successful defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

They argued the actions were strategic lawsuits against public participation and constituted an abuse of process intended to interfere with the political process.

The court rejected the abuse of process allegation, finding the plaintiff was entitled to pursue legal remedies during an election campaign and that the evidence did not establish a political motive or distortion of the electoral process.

Adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff and litigation conduct did not justify elevated costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, emphasizing proportionality, the public interest issues involved, and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiff sued for libel arising from an open letter delivered by the defendant, then a municipal council candidate, to Toronto councillors and the Mayor concerning alleged influence over a controversial City lease and related election finance questions.

The court held that the letter was defamatory and referred to the plaintiff, but found that the occasion of publication attracted qualified privilege and that portions of the letter also constituted fair comment on matters of public interest.

The court rejected the defence of responsible communication as unavailable on these facts, but held the plaintiff failed to prove express malice sufficient to defeat qualified privilege or fair comment.

The action was dismissed, with contingent general damages assessed at $22,500.

The applicant corporation sought orders under the Securities Act and the Business Corporations Act to restrict certain shareholders from voting shares allegedly acquired in breach of early warning reporting requirements, to declare that a shareholder rights plan “flip‑in event” had occurred, and to invalidate a dissident proxy solicitation ahead of an annual general meeting.

The court declined to address the alleged early warning breach because the matter was already the subject of an ongoing Ontario Securities Commission investigation and had previously been withdrawn from related litigation.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court held that the discretionary remedy of prohibiting voting rights would not be appropriate given the circumstances and absence of harm to the market or shareholders.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents acted jointly or in concert in organizing the proxy solicitation or that the circular was misleading under applicable securities and corporate law regulations.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents were entirely successful in the appeals and settled their costs with the appellant Molson Sport & Entertainment Inc. They sought costs from the appellant Jonathan Vrozos, who took no position.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents payable by Vrozos in the amount of $49,768.00.

The appellants, Molson and Vrozos, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for intentional interference with economic relations, breach of contract, and fraud arising from the sale of exclusive water rights at a large concert.

Molson had sold exclusive water rights to Vrozos, who then sold them to the respondents.

Molson subsequently allowed other vendors to sell water and forced the respondents to supply free water to meet health requirements.

Vrozos also made unauthorized side deals and misappropriated funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and the award of punitive damages against Vrozos, correcting only the method of calculating damages against Molson and dismissing Vrozos's crossclaim against Molson for a management fee.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for damages equivalent to a judgment the respondent insurer had obtained against his wife.

The trial judge found that the appellant and his wife had fraudulently conveyed their jointly held matrimonial home to the appellant alone to defeat the respondent's claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding of fraudulent intent based on the 'badges of fraud' and the shifting burden of proof.

The Court also affirmed that under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act, the appellant held the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the property in trust for the respondent creditor.

The respondent dentist sued his former lawyer for deceit and breach of a barter arrangement after the lawyer falsely claimed for years that the dentist's actions were proceeding to trial.

The trial judge awarded $20,000 for deceit due to office disruption and $15,467.65 for unpaid dental services under the barter arrangement.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the deceit damages, finding no evidence of actual financial loss, but upheld the damages for the barter arrangement.

Trial costs on a substantial indemnity basis were reduced from $55,000 to $40,000.

The bankrupts and the appellant co-owned two condominium units.

The bankrupts' Statements of Affairs misrepresented the value of the units and the encumbrances, leading the trustee in bankruptcy to discharge without realizing on the assets.

After the trustee's discharge, the appellant obtained discharges of the mortgages, which were effectively unenforceable due to prior litigation.

The trustee learned of the true value, sought reappointment under s. 41(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and applied for partition and sale.

The appellant opposed, claiming entitlement to the properties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding the trustee was entitled to realize on the assets that existed during the bankruptcy but were not disclosed, and that the trustee was not estopped from doing so.