Glenn Michael Brandys

The plaintiff brought an action for constructive dismissal and breach of contract against his former employer.

The defendant did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an uncontested basis.

The court found the plaintiff was constructively dismissed after the employer unilaterally modified his duties to marginalize his role and hired a replacement for him to report to.

The court awarded damages for failure to deliver shares under the employment contract, damages in lieu of six months' reasonable notice, and aggravated and punitive damages for the employer's egregious conduct.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding the suspension of his privileges and revocation of his hospital appointment for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that HPARB reasonably applied the Matangi test to uphold the policy, properly admitted expert evidence on infectious diseases, and correctly restricted its evidentiary review to the information available at the time the hospital made its decision.

The court found no procedural unfairness or bias that would vitiate the decision.

The Kriesers appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for construction deficiencies and breach of fiduciary duty, and granted judgment to the respondents for outstanding invoices.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's determination that the Kriesers breached the contract by withholding payments, which disentitled them to warranty claims, and that there was insufficient evidence for the remaining deficiency claims.

The court also upheld the finding that no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, and affirmed the trial judge's cost award.

This decision addresses the issue of costs and pre-judgment interest following a 29-day trial concerning a dispute over the construction of a luxury custom home.

The court's prior reasons (2023 ONSC 2015) found the owners (the Kriesers) breached contracts with the builder/landscaper (the GES defendants), dismissing the Kriesers' claims and awarding outstanding amounts to the GES defendants on their counterclaim.

The GES defendants sought substantial indemnity costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court fixed pre-judgment interest, reducing it for periods of delay attributable to the GES defendants and the COVID-19 pandemic.

For costs, the court awarded the GES defendants partial indemnity costs up to their Rule 49 Offer to Settle date (November 22, 2016) and then blended costs thereafter, reflecting their complete success in the action and counterclaim.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs throughout, finding the Kriesers' allegations did not warrant it, and made minor adjustments for costs related to mid-trial adjournments and new counsel familiarization.

The Kriesers sued Gregory Evan Seligman and his companies (G.E.S. Construction Limited, Greenstone Gardens Inc., etc.) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, punitive damages, trespass, and intimidation related to the construction of a luxury custom home.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid accounts.

The court found that the Kriesers breached the construction and landscaping contracts by failing to make timely and sufficient payments.

All claims brought by the Kriesers were dismissed, and the counterclaims by G.E.S. Construction Limited and Greenstone Gardens Inc. for outstanding amounts were granted.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought motions to extend the set down deadline in a 2012 construction deficiency action and to have a related 2017 solicitor's negligence action tried together with it.

The defendants in the construction action cross-moved to dismiss for delay.

The court granted the extension peremptorily to December 31, 2023, finding the delay adequately explained and no actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together and instead stayed the solicitor's negligence action, finding the construction action significantly more complex and that a stay would prevent unnecessary duplication of resources.

The appellant owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent construction manager its share of cost savings under a construction management contract.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the contract, her refusal to strike an affidavit, and her finding that the cost savings were lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's contractual interpretation or her conclusion that cost savings constitute a lienable service.

The appellant, Previn Homes, appealed a lower court decision that found it breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The core issue was whether the parties could contractually extend the closing date outside the strict framework of the Tarion Addendum, which governs new home warranties.

The Court of Appeal found that non-compliant amendments to critical dates under the Tarion Addendum are voidable at the purchaser's option, not automatically invalid.

Since the purchaser (Ingarra) did not void the agreed-upon extension, the vendor (Previn Homes) was entitled to terminate the agreement when the purchaser failed to close on the extended date.

The appeal was allowed, dismissing the purchaser's application.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's orders relating to the division of net family property and spousal support in a family law matter.

The principal issues were: (1) whether the trial judge erred in discounting a $5,000,000 promissory note by 90% for equalization purposes, where the note was signed on behalf of the appellant's holding company in favour of his parents for a condominium project loan; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in awarding indefinite spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld both decisions, finding that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding contingent liabilities and exercised reasonable discretion in awarding indefinite spousal support based on the respondent's health issues and the compensatory nature of support.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class action by former junior hockey players seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, the court determined the costs awards.

The plaintiffs succeeded in certifying the action against the Canadian teams but failed against the American teams.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,212,065.63 in partial indemnity costs, with $500,000 payable forthwith and the balance in the cause.

The American teams were awarded $200,000 in costs, which the court ordered to be credited against the plaintiffs' award, akin to a Bullock or Sanderson order, reflecting that both sides were responsible for the excessive litigation expense.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, and class counsel's legal fees after eight years of litigation, including trials and appeals.

The class action arose from misrepresentations by George Brown College regarding industry designations for its International Business Management Program.

The settlement provides $2.725 million to 108 class members, covering direct costs and a portion of foregone income, and was deemed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed $2.5 billion class proceeding against an insurer arising from alleged misrepresentations in the sale and administration of universal life insurance policies originally issued by another insurer.

The defendant opposed certification and brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment arguing the representative plaintiffs’ claims were statute‑barred.

The court held that the alleged misrepresentation, deceit, good faith, and rescission claims lacked commonality and largely mirrored deficiencies identified in prior appellate authority concerning insurance misrepresentation class actions.

The court further found most negligent misrepresentation claims were statute‑barred under applicable provincial limitation statutes, while certain breach of contract claims relating to cost‑of‑insurance and administrative fee adjustments were not clearly time‑barred but required further evidentiary development.

Certification was dismissed except that the motion was adjourned to permit further evidence regarding potential breach of contract claims concerning cost‑of‑insurance and administrative fee calculations.