Glen Perinot

The applicants, claiming to be the rightfully elected directors of a temple, applied for an order appointing a monitor over the temple's affairs and freezing its assets.

They alleged that the respondent former directors misappropriated funds and failed to hold lawful elections.

The court found the applicants' allegations of breach of trust were unsubstantiated and did not raise a serious issue to be tried.

The application was dismissed, as there was no basis to impose a monitor under the court's equitable jurisdiction.

The bankrupt appealed a Master's order granting a conditional discharge that required him to pay $284,346 in accumulated surplus income and an additional $5,000 per month for six years.

The bankrupt argued the Master erred by treating the additional payments as a recalculation of surplus income under section 68 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master properly imposed the additional payments as a condition of discharge under section 172, not as a recalculation of surplus income.

The court held the condition was reasonable given the bankrupt's substantial ongoing disability income, his failure to pay surplus income during the bankruptcy, and his lack of remorse for misappropriating $5 million from clients.

Following a short civil trial in which the defendant obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The parties had streamlined the trial through an agreed statement of facts and the legal issue was comparatively narrow.

The defendant sought approximately $30,000 in costs while the plaintiff argued that approximately $18,645 would be reasonable given proportionality and the amount claimed.

Applying the principles governing costs, including reasonable expectations and proportionality, the court fixed costs payable to the defendant at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff brought an action against the LCBO for damages in conversion after his credit card was used without authorization to purchase approximately $37,000 worth of alcohol for a nightclub.

The plaintiff failed to notify his credit card company of the unauthorized charges within the required 30-day period.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the LCBO did not commit the tort of conversion as it merely processed the orders and delivered the goods in the normal course of business without any wrongful act or intent to negate the plaintiff's title.

The court noted that had the action been framed in negligence, the plaintiff would have been found wholly responsible for his losses due to his failure to monitor his credit card statements.

The plaintiffs requested that the court settle and issue a formal order reflecting an earlier endorsement that imposed interim injunctive terms restraining the defendants from disseminating defamatory allegations pending the disposition of an injunction motion.

The defendant argued that the earlier endorsement had become stale because a contemplated cross‑motion had not been argued and other events had intervened.

The court rejected that submission, finding the delay in advancing the cross‑motion was entirely attributable to the defendants and that the interim terms were not contingent on the cross‑motion being heard on a particular date.

The court held that the defendants could not benefit from their own failure to advance the motion and that the plaintiffs remained entitled to have the order formally issued.

The judge therefore signed the draft order reflecting the earlier endorsement.

Following the dismissal of actions and the granting of summary judgment to casino operators and a gaming regulator, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed approximately $14 million alleging illegality in casino roulette operations and unjust enrichment.

The court held that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, rejecting claims for substantial indemnity and also declining the plaintiffs’ submission that no costs should be awarded due to alleged illegality.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and appellate guidance on reasonable and proportionate costs, the court fixed reduced lump-sum costs awards.

The casino defendants were awarded $110,000 and the regulator $60,000.

Multiple plaintiffs who were high-limit roulette players alleged that a casino operated illegal roulette games by allowing dealers to remove “floating balls” before they landed in a numbered slot, contrary to approved rules of play under Ontario gaming regulations.

They sought $7.5 million in damages and restitution of approximately $2.1 million lost gambling, asserting tort, contract, statutory misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the actions and enforcing unpaid gambling loans.

The court held that even if the “floating ball” practice was not an approved rule of play and could have rendered certain spins unlawful, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the casino returned all wagers whenever a spin was stopped, meaning there was no enrichment and no corresponding deprivation.

With no viable damages evidence and no triable issues, summary judgment was granted and the defendants also succeeded on their collection counterclaims.