Girolamo Falletta

The defendants were convicted of 69 counts under the Employer Health Tax Act and 62 counts under the Retail Sales Tax Act, involving the failure to remit over $1,675,000 in taxes.

The sentencing decision addresses a sophisticated, multi-year tax evasion scheme involving the operation of multiple related corporations and the deliberate mischaracterization of employment relationships.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 21 months imprisonment, substantial fines totaling approximately $9.9 million, and probation, finding that the offences constituted fraudulent conduct warranting incarceration despite the defendant's lack of prior criminal record.

This blended civil trial concerned a contractor's claim for unpaid renovation invoices, a homeowners' counterclaim for overpayment and deficient work, and a related action for misrepresentation against the contractor's principal.

The court found an unwritten consumer renovation agreement for conversion of an older dwelling into an income-producing multi-unit property, and held that the contractor and its principal negligently misrepresented their competence, the necessity of obtaining permits, and the projected completion timeline.

Because billing for time, materials, and extras was ambiguous and unsupported, the court assessed the value of the work on a quantum meruit basis and deducted deficiency-correction costs.

The contractor's claims were dismissed, punitive damages were refused, and the homeowners recovered overpayment, financing losses, and lost rental income, totalling $124,453.20 plus prejudgment interest.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider a previous order granting her a rent abatement and improperly proceeded in her absence due to a medical emergency.

On consent of the parties, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board committed a reversible error by failing to account for the prior abatement order.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing to be held concurrently with a new eviction application filed by the property's subsequent owner.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that their residential complex was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under section 5(a).

The Board had concluded the accommodation was occupied for a seasonal or temporary period within a resort vacation establishment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Board's application of the exemption, noting it correctly followed precedent regarding multi-season temporary occupancy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay damages for breach of a land-clearing contract and dismissing his defendant's claim.

The appellant argued the trial judge's strict time limits, constant interruptions, and refusal to allow closing submissions rendered the trial unfair.

He also appealed the trial judge's exclusion of written witness statements, including an expert report.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inflexible timetable and denial of the right to make closing submissions amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court also found the trial judge erred in law by excluding the written statements contrary to the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent homeowner damages for deficient renovations, including a faulty foundation and a replacement deck.

The appellant argued the foundation claim was statute-barred and the deck damages were not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the foundation defect was not discovered until the homeowner learned weeping tile had not been installed.

The court also upheld the award for deck damages, noting the Small Claims Court's flexibility with pleadings where the defendant had advance notice and suffered no prejudice.

A real estate brokerage sued a homeowner seeking recovery of commission following the sale of the homeowner’s property.

The brokerage argued its agent introduced the eventual buyers and performed services leading to the sale.

The court found the agent merely forwarded an MLS listing and prepared an offer that was never accepted, while the final agreement of purchase and sale was prepared independently without any commission clause.

Because the agent did not produce an accepted offer meeting the seller’s commission conditions and did not complete the transaction, no contractual entitlement to commission arose.

The claim was dismissed.