Glenn Richard Solomon

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The appellants, purchasers of a condominium unit, appealed the dismissal of their claim for damages arising from the vendor's breach of an agreement of purchase and sale and their request for relief from forfeiture of their deposit.

The vendor repeatedly extended the occupancy date, which the trial judge found constituted a breach.

However, the trial judge also found that the purchasers had affirmed the agreement by continuing to press for performance and denied relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on repudiation and affirmation, concluding that the purchasers' conduct was consistent with treating the agreement as subsisting.

The Court also affirmed the trial judge's refusal to grant relief from forfeiture, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the remedy and the vendor's incurred expenses.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in principle in assessing costs by not adequately considering the vendor's net profit from the resale of the unit.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on the main issues but granted leave to appeal the costs award, vacating the original costs order and directing each party to bear their own costs for both the trial and the appeal.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion regarding a commercial lease and parking dispute, the successful defendant sought costs of $586,141.79 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and noting that Rule 49.10 limits a defendant to partial indemnity costs even when the plaintiff's claim is completely dismissed.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $398,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding the time spent and hourly rates reasonable given the complexity and the $4.6 million claim.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision.

The successful Plaintiff sought costs of $43,566.14, including disbursements for an expert report on Dutch law.

The Defendant challenged the quantum, arguing the issue was comparatively narrow and suggesting half the amount.

The court, applying principles of proportionality, found the claimed amount excessive and fixed the Plaintiff's costs at $30,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff, AAA Entertainment B.V., moved for summary judgment to enforce a foreign judgment from the Amsterdam District Court against the defendant, Cinemavault Releasing International Inc. While partial summary judgment was granted for the principal amount, the defendant contested the enforcement of a court-imposed penalty for delayed compliance, arguing improper service and public policy contravention.

The court found proper service under Dutch law and the Hague Convention and determined that the penalty, being a coercive measure to ensure compliance rather than a penal provision, was not contrary to Ontario public policy and was therefore enforceable.

The appellants challenged the legality of the Federal Child Support Guidelines through judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court held that provincial superior courts can address the validity of the Guidelines when necessary in proceedings properly before them, and that the Federal Court reasonably exercised its discretion to decline judicial review because that route was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons cautioning against treating the case as a definitive ruling on exclusive federal jurisdiction to invalidate all federal regulations on administrative grounds.

The appellant, an undischarged bankrupt, appealed a motion judge's decision striking his claim.

He argued that a master's order authorized him to pursue the action nunc pro tunc.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that an undischarged bankrupt lacks the capacity to launch and pursue a civil action, and noting that the master's order did not purport to lift this disability.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a breach of contract action on the basis that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity because he was an undischarged bankrupt.

The court considered the effect of s. 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the principle that property and causes of action vest in the trustee upon bankruptcy.

The plaintiff argued that the claim related to after-acquired property and could therefore be pursued personally.

The court rejected this argument, holding that an undischarged bankrupt cannot commence or maintain an action concerning property interests vested in the trustee, subject only to narrow statutory exceptions not applicable here.

The action was declared a nullity and dismissed as an abuse of process, prior orders obtained without notice were set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

Competing applications were brought under s. 380 of the Municipal Act for payment out of surplus funds paid into court following a municipal tax sale.

A second mortgagee sought payment of the funds based on priority of encumbrances, while subsequent encumbrancers alleged improper dealings with the property and inadequate accounting during prior mortgage enforcement.

The court held that speculative allegations regarding earlier mortgage transactions and tax sale circumstances could not be adjudicated within the limited scope of a s. 380 application.

Finding that the mortgage debt owed to the second mortgagee exceeded the funds in court and that no proof supported the competing claims, the court ordered payment out of the funds to the second mortgagee according to legal priority.

The Court substantially dismissed the appeals and held Alberta’s privacy legislation unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression in the labour-relations context.

The statutory scheme failed to provide a mechanism to balance expressive activities during lawful picketing against privacy interests.

The Court declared the statute invalid, suspended the declaration for 12 months, quashed the adjudicator’s order, and awarded costs to the union.

Multiple defendants brought motions seeking security for costs against a plaintiff who was ordinarily resident outside Ontario in two related civil actions.

The plaintiff argued impecuniosity and contended that an order for security would effectively drive him from the litigation.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold required to establish impecuniosity because he provided outdated financial disclosure and did not produce complete, current documentation regarding income, assets, liabilities, and borrowing capacity.

Finding the requested security amounts reasonable given the anticipated complexity and duration of the litigation, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in both actions, failing which the proceedings would be stayed.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner received complaints that the respondent disclosed private information in contravention of the Personal Information Protection Act.

The Commissioner took 22 months to extend the 90-day statutory time limit for completing the inquiry.

An adjudicator subsequently found the respondent had contravened the Act.

On judicial review, the respondent argued for the first time that the Commissioner lost jurisdiction by failing to extend the time limit within the initial 90 days.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the adjudicator implicitly decided the timelines issue, and this decision was reviewable on a standard of reasonableness because the tribunal was interpreting its home statute.

The Court found the adjudicator's implied decision to be reasonable and restored the order.

The appellant real estate brokerage claimed a commission from the respondents based on an exclusive listing agreement.

The respondents had entered into a lease agreement and an agreement of purchase and sale with a third party during the extended term of the listing agreement.

The appellant argued this amounted to a completed transaction or an option to purchase.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of the claim, finding that the transaction was a lease pending a future sale, and any ambiguity in the broker-drafted agreement must be resolved in favour of the respondents.

The appellant husband appealed a motions judge's finding that the parties had reached a settlement agreement regarding the division of their property, including the matrimonial home and the husband's business.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge's conclusion was not supported by the evidence, noting that the wife's former solicitor's evidence contradicted the finding.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment was set aside in its entirety.