George Limberis

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the unreported decision of V. Christie J. dated October 17, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiffs, a commercial landlord and property owner, brought an action against a tenant and its guarantor for damages arising from the breach and repudiation of a ten-year commercial lease.

The tenant had abandoned the premises and delivered a notice of termination, claiming the lease was frustrated by COVID-19 restrictions and that the landlord failed to timely complete agreed-upon improvements.

The court found that the lease commenced on March 1, 2020, its start date was not conditional on the completion of landlord improvements, and the tenant had repudiated the contract.

Consequently, the court dismissed the tenant's counterclaim for misrepresentation and rescission, and awarded the plaintiffs damages for lost rent, mitigation costs, and the diminution of the property's market value.

The court found that Empire Steel Inc. breached its sublease with AZZ Galvanizing Canada Limited by overcharging for hydro, contrary to the contractual requirement to pass on only the actual cost of utilities.

Empire’s attempt to justify the overcharges by reference to alternative agreements and a retroactive TMI reconciliation was rejected as lacking credibility and good faith.

The court awarded AZZ $418,876 for hydro overcharges, subject to a $20,000 set-off for outdoor storage, and dismissed all other counterclaims and crossclaims.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 100-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 12-day merit hearing for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 100-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to several individuals and entities.

Due to the municipality and the added party needing more time to finalize their issues, the Tribunal deferred the finalization of the Procedural Order and Issues List, as well as the scheduling of the merit hearing, to a second Case Management Conference.

This is an appeal concerning the interpretation of an assignment agreement related to parking lot revenue.

The appellant, 200 Ferrand Realty Limited, and the respondent, 1284225 Ontario Limited, shared revenue from a parking lot. 1284225 Ontario Limited, despite having assigned its rights, attempted to negotiate new parking rates with the parking space provider.

The application judge implied a term into the parking agreement granting 1284225 Ontario Limited participative status in rate setting, without providing parties an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no basis for the implied term, and held that 1284225 Ontario Limited, not being a party to the parking agreement, had no right to participate in rate formulation or negotiation.

The court clarified that 1284225 Ontario Limited's interest is governed by 200 Ferrand Realty Limited's duty of good faith under the assignment agreement.

This judgment addresses two related applications concerning the interpretation of a Parking Agreement and an Assignment Agreement.

The primary issues involved determining the correct formula for calculating parking rates, the necessity and admissibility of expert evidence, whether retroactive payments were due, and the authority of the parties to negotiate and fix parking rates.

The court interpreted the Parking Agreement to require rates based on commercial, bona fide, arm's length public parking rates, not landlord-to-tenant rates.

It rejected expert evidence as unnecessary for rate determination and found the submitted evidence from both sides deficient.

The court ordered retroactive payments from June 1, 2019, and implied a good faith obligation for all parties to negotiate the parking rate, clarifying that neither 1284225 Ontario Limited nor 200 Ferrand Realty Limited could unilaterally negotiate or impose rates.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her wrongful dismissal and human rights claims following her failure to return to work after maternity leave.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding that an 8:30 a.m. start time was a fundamental term of her employment contract, and that the employer's insistence on this time constituted constructive dismissal and family status discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the start time was an existing contractual term and that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination regarding her child care needs.

The applicant, a former CEO, brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel of record, arguing that the lawyers were likely to be called as witnesses regarding his termination and share valuation, and that they had a conflict of interest from previously setting up a trust structure for him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lawyers were acting for the corporation, not the applicant personally, and that the only genuine issue in dispute was the valuation of shares, making the lawyers' evidence regarding alleged oppression irrelevant.

This endorsement addresses costs for a motion brought by Daniel Sherk, seeking to compel Verge Insurance Brokers Limited to pay the balance of Deloitte's forensic accounting fees.

Daniel Sherk was unsuccessful in his motion.

The court awarded Verge partial indemnity costs, fixing them at $37,500.00, significantly less than the $79,629.31 requested on a substantial indemnity basis.

Additionally, Verge was awarded $1,500.00 for its involvement in Deloitte's separate application for payment.

The court emphasized reasonableness and proportionality in fixing costs, noting that the motion was uncomplicated and senior counsel's time appeared inordinate.

Deloitte, a forensic expert, brought a motion for costs against Daniel Sherk for an outstanding account, following a prior ruling that established Sherk's responsibility for the balance.

Sherk had agreed to judgment for the amount owed but disputed the basis and quantum of costs.

The court found Sherk's opposition was not "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous" to warrant substantial indemnity costs or sanctions.

The court awarded Deloitte costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amount from $27,546.00 to $17,500.00, considering proportionality and Deloitte's failure to respond to Sherk's offer.

The defendant Daniel Sherk moved for the plaintiffs (Verge Insurance Brokers Limited et al.) to pay the total costs incurred by Deloitte Forensic Inc. for recreating, preserving, and analyzing 79 backup tapes.

The court reviewed previous orders by Quinn J. and Turnbull J., which stipulated that while Verge had an obligation to produce relevant documents from the tapes, Daniel's subsequent audit by Deloitte was generally at his own expense.

The court found that Verge had already paid for Deloitte's analysis of the initial 13 tapes as ordered by Turnbull J. due to Verge's initial non-compliance.

However, Daniel's motion for Verge to cover the additional costs for the remaining 66 tapes (approximately $280,000) was dismissed, with the possibility of rearguing these costs as disbursements at trial.

The court also denied Deloitte's claim for interest on the $67,613.99 already paid by Verge, as Deloitte had failed to cash the cheque promptly.

The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss all claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. and specific claims by 1526806 Ontario Inc. for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, punitive damages, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. due to lack of privity of contract and rejected an attempt to amend the claim for unjust enrichment as untimely.

Claims for aggravated damages were dismissed because corporations cannot suffer intangible injuries.

Claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed due to an absence of evidence of loss or reliance.

However, the motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages was denied, as it was intertwined with the breach of contract claim that was proceeding to trial, raising an unacceptable risk of inconsistent factual findings.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices relating to custom millwork installed in two homes renovated by the defendants.

The court found summary judgment appropriate for part of the claim, awarding the plaintiff damages for work actually delivered, less a set-off for conceded deficiencies.

The court dismissed the remainder of the claim for undelivered work due to the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence of its actual damages or costs incurred.

The issue of whether a trust was created under the Construction Lien Act from the sale proceeds of the homes was directed to a mini-trial due to insufficient evidence on the record.

The appellant appealed an order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that it had obtained ex parte.

The Master had discharged the CPL on the grounds of material non-disclosure and that the appellant did not have a reasonable claim to an interest in the land based on an easement for a storm water pond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master did not exceed her jurisdiction, made no palpable and overriding error in finding material non-disclosure, correctly concluded that the preconditions for the easement had not been met, and did not exhibit a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellants appealed a case management judge's order requiring them to reimburse the respondent for the costs of a forensic review of backup tapes containing email communications.

The motion judge found that the appellants had failed to comply with their documentary discovery obligations and had made misstatements about their review of the backup tapes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and concluding that the relief granted was procedurally fair and within the scope of the motion.

The defendant Daniel Sherk sought leave to appeal an order denying various requests for document production.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the procedural motion did not involve matters of general or public importance beyond the immediate parties, thus failing the second part of the strict two-part test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages for breach of an employment contract, alleging entitlement to 180 days' notice or pay in lieu upon termination.

The defendant denied this, claiming the contract provided for Canada Labour Code minimums and that the plaintiff's relied-upon "Schedule A" was a forgery.

The court found significant discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence regarding Schedule A, suggesting it was forged and not part of the original agreement.

However, due to unresolved questions regarding other email exchanges and the potential for inadvertent non-disclosure of electronic evidence, the court declined to grant summary judgment at this stage.

Instead, it issued directions for further document disclosure, cross-examinations, and a subsequent hearing to fully resolve the factual disputes.

The defendant moved to discharge an ex parte order granting the plaintiff leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against its land.

The plaintiff claimed an easement over the defendant's land pursuant to a Storm Water Pond Agreement entered into with a previous owner.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure before the ex parte master, including misrepresenting the nature of the alleged easement and failing to disclose a rejected development application by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.

The court set aside the ex parte order, concluding the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in the land, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendant.

This is a costs endorsement following Daniel Sherk's successful motion to compel production of backup tapes.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to comply with disclosure obligations under the Rules of Practice and the Sedona Principles, necessitating Daniel Sherk to incur significant costs for an audit.

The court awarded Daniel Sherk substantial indemnity costs, including indemnification for the $200,000 paid to Deloitte for the audit, totaling $46,854.92 for the motion itself.