Gleb Matushansky

The appellants, a wife and a family company, appealed a partial determination of competing applications regarding the company's share structure and the beneficial ownership of a property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider relevant evidence, including the company accountant's testimony regarding the share structure, and by failing to address the presumption of resulting trust regarding the property.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a rehearing before a different judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to complete an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to pay the required deposit and failed to close the transaction despite multiple extensions.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement and awarded the plaintiffs damages representing the difference between the contract price and the property's market value on the final scheduled closing date, plus carrying costs.

This is a complex oppression and wrongful dismissal matter involving a closely held family company.

The plaintiff, an estranged son-in-law employed for 27 years, was terminated following discovery of a fraudulent invoicing scheme through which he misappropriated over $500,000 from the family businesses.

The plaintiff claims oppression and wrongful dismissal, while the defendants counterclaim for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated for cause due to the fraudulent scheme, was not oppressed, and breached his fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff is liable for damages totaling approximately $571,452.25 plus disgorgement of profits.

The court ordered a buyout of the plaintiff's 50% interest in the operating company at a price to be determined by a jointly retained neutral valuator, but dismissed claims for buyout of the real estate holding companies and oppression remedies.

This decision concerns cross-applications to set aside or enforce two arbitral decisions relating to a commercial property dispute between the Moscone Parties and Edenrock Holdings Inc. and Anthony Marrese.

The Moscone Parties sought to set aside or appeal the arbitral decisions on grounds of procedural unfairness, natural justice, and bias, or in the alternative, to remit the matter to a new arbitrator.

The court dismissed the Moscone Parties’ application, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal.

The application by Edenrock and Marrese to enforce the arbitral decisions was granted.

This case involved a family dispute over a corporation and real estate.

The applicants sought validation of a shareholder meeting and a declaration of beneficial ownership of a property.

The respondents cross-applied, disputing the applicants' shareholder status.

The court found in favour of the applicants, confirming their shareholder status, validating the meeting, and declaring them beneficial owners of the property.

This motion concerned an application by 2441799 Ontario Inc. to amend its Notice of Application to add Gil Shcolyar as a respondent and to make related amendments.

The applicant sought to add claims against Mr. Shcolyar, the sole director and officer of the respondent 2474187 Ontario Inc., alleging improper conduct related to a lease renewal, a proposed property purchase, and the termination of the lease.

The court granted leave to add Mr. Shcolyar as a respondent and allowed most of the proposed amendments, finding sufficient factual underpinning.

However, allegations of fraud against Mr. Shcolyar were dismissed without prejudice, with leave granted to the applicant to re-plead them with sufficient particulars.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated October 19, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, dismiss the action, return security, compel answers to undertakings, and for security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's requests for lien discharge, action dismissal, and security for costs, finding triable issues regarding lien timeliness and insufficient evidence for frivolous/vexatious claims or lack of assets.

However, the court granted the order compelling the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings.