Gigi Costanzo

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on an action for payment of a promissory note executed by the defendants.

The defendants argued the note was unenforceable due to an oral collateral agreement, lack of consideration, duress, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court applied the parol evidence rule to exclude evidence of the alleged collateral agreement and found the defendants' claims of duress and fraud to be unsupported by credible evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded $250,000 plus interest.

The respondent brought a motion to transfer an estate application from Ottawa to Newmarket.

The applicant, who commenced the application in Ottawa, opposed the transfer.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the convenience of the parties was equally balanced.

The court also noted that keeping the matter in Ottawa would trigger mandatory mediation under Rule 75.1, which would benefit the parties.

The motion was dismissed as the respondent failed to establish that Newmarket was a significantly better venue.

The Estate of George Kargakos was successful on a motion for possession of a jointly-held property and sought partial indemnity costs of $38,607.62.

The respondent argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge, denied entirely, or reduced, and requested a 12-month payment period.

The court declined to reserve costs or deny them, finding the estate was entirely successful.

After considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the lawyers' hourly rates and the complexity of the issues, the court fixed costs at $30,415.12 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Due to the respondent's plea of hardship, the court permitted payment in quarterly instalments over 12 months.

The moving party estate sought an interim order for exclusive possession and sale of a commercial/residential property co-owned by the deceased father and the responding party son.

The son opposed the sale, arguing he had an oral agreement with his father to inherit the property and that a sale would defeat his claim for sole ownership at trial.

The court granted the motion, finding the property was vacant, deteriorating, and accumulating tax arrears, and that the son's opposition did not amount to malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the estate that would justify refusing a sale under the Partition Act.