Grant R. Dow

The applicant-tenant sought to invalidate a Notice of Termination issued by the respondent-landlord.

The landlord relied on a 30-day termination clause that had been added to the commercial lease in 1997 and modified in 1998.

The tenant argued the clause did not apply to the current lease and relied on principles of commercial lease interpretation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the termination clause was clear, unambiguous, and had never been expressly removed in subsequent lease extensions.

Furthermore, the tenant had signed an estoppel certificate acknowledging the lease documents containing the termination right.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a mortgage shortfall claim against the defendant following the defendant's default on mortgage payments beginning in November 2023.

The defendant owned a four-unit apartment building that was subject to a first mortgage of approximately $1.5 million and a second mortgage of $180,000 held by the plaintiff.

After the defendant failed to make payments, the plaintiff made payments to the first mortgagee, obtained possession, and sold the property under power of sale for $1.935 million.

The sale proceeds, after deducting the first mortgage, expenses, and other costs, resulted in a shortfall of $118,325.92.

The defendant opposed the summary judgment motion, challenging the quantum and raising unsubstantiated allegations of intentional value depression.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a former member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, brought an action against a senior investigator of the regulatory body regarding her conduct during a professional discipline investigation that resulted in the revocation of his membership.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action.

The court found that the action was an abuse of process as it attempted to relitigate matters that were or could have been raised before the Discipline Committee.

The court also found the claim to be vexatious and frivolous, as the defendant was merely an investigator and not the decision-maker.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

Following a failed residential real estate transaction in which the purchasers did not pay the required deposit, the defendants pursued a third party claim against their real estate agent and brokerage for indemnity.

The central allegation was that the agent had advised the purchasers that the agreement was effectively conditional on delivery of the deposit and that non-payment would permit them to walk away without liability.

The court rejected that factual theory, finding the signed agreement and surrounding communications supported the conclusion that the purchasers had been committing to a firm deal and were later attempting to avoid completion after family advice.

The court accepted the general statement of the real estate agent’s duty of care but held no breach was established on the evidence.

The third party claim was dismissed.

The moving defendants sought a stay of an Ontario action arising from cancelled purchase orders for custom fiber optic components, arguing the dispute belonged in Oregon.

Applying the Van Breda framework, the court held there was a sufficient real and substantial connection to Ontario because the goods were manufactured in Ottawa, the business relationship involved regular attendance in Ontario to monitor production, and payment obligations ran to the Ontario manufacturer.

The court further held the defendants failed to establish forum non conveniens, noting the limited weight of witness-location concerns in the era of virtual testimony, the absence of competing Oregon proceedings, and the lack of demonstrated prejudice from litigating in Ontario.

The stay motion was dismissed and the responding plaintiff received partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause after nine months of employment.

The plaintiff argued the termination clause in his employment agreement was unenforceable because it violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court found the termination clause enforceable, as it clearly limited the employer's obligations to the minimum statutory entitlements under the ESA.

The plaintiff's claim for common law damages was dismissed.

The court also assessed the hypothetical common law notice period at four months and determined the plaintiff would have been entitled to unvested Restricted Stock Units had the termination clause been unenforceable.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding a property dispute, the successful respondent sought full indemnity costs of $268,233.87.

The court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs, finding no malicious conduct by the applicants and noting the requested amount was disproportionate to the applicants' own costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $105,681.60 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff sought half of a casino royal flush jackpot won by his brother, alleging breach of an oral jackpot-sharing agreement, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment.

The court found there had been a longstanding arrangement to share significant gambling winnings when the brothers attended and played together, but that arrangement was narrowed by an April 17, 2022 text exchange to apply only when both were there together.

Because the defendant won the jackpot while alone, the revised agreement did not apply and there was no breach.

The court also rejected the trust and unjust enrichment claims and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce signed Minutes of Settlement reached shortly before a scheduled family property trial concerning alleged beneficial ownership of two residential condominiums.

The defendants argued the action should proceed because they were rushed, distressed, and did not understand the terms.

The court found a binding settlement had been reached on all essential terms, preferred the evidence of former defence counsel over the defendants' evidence, and held that subjective after-the-fact misunderstanding did not displace the objective meaning of the written agreement.

The court further held that this was not one of the rare cases where compelling circumstances made enforcement contrary to the interests of justice.

Judgment was ordered in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment between Kishan Patel (and his company TechSpirer Inc.) and ITCAD Tech Inc. regarding unpaid invoices and the enforceability of a non-competition clause in a consulting agreement.

The court found that TechSpirer Inc. was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that the non-competition clause was valid and enforceable.

Damages were awarded to both parties, with the plaintiffs receiving unpaid invoices and punitive damages, and the defendant receiving partial damages for breach of the non-compete.

The court also addressed issues of frustration, repudiation, and costs.

The plaintiff, Haytham Elzayat, brought a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board for alleged misconduct arising from his arrests and charges for assault on October 17, 2016, and April 15, 2017.

The court found that the police officers involved acted reasonably and met the required standard of care in their investigations and arrests.

The court dismissed all claims, including those for negligent investigation, breach of Charter rights, and discrimination, and found no evidence to support the plaintiff’s allegations.

The court also addressed the limitation period and assessed damages that would have been awarded had the claim succeeded, ultimately awarding costs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs, Avante Automobile (2017) Corporation and Francesco Serpa, sought damages from BMW Canada Inc. for breach of statutory, contractual, and common law duties in relation to the purchase and operation of a BMW dealership.

The court found BMW Canada liable for failing to properly document an extension to complete required renovations and for not following the termination provisions of the Retailer Agreement.

However, the court preferred the defendant’s evidence on valuation and found no net recoverable damages.

The action was dismissed, subject to costs.

The court considered costs following a mixed-success application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Although the applicants were awarded monetary relief, they failed on significant claims, including a request for 45% ownership and profits of the respondent corporation.

The court found success was divided and ordered each party to bear their own costs, referencing relevant offers to settle and prior case law on divided success.

The City of Toronto sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, relying on section 42(4)(b) of the City of Toronto Act, which bars actions for damages caused by the condition of an "untravelled portion of a highway." The court found that the area where the plaintiff was injured was not intended for ordinary or normal use, nor commonly or additionally used by the public, and therefore fell within the statutory bar.

The action against the City of Toronto was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The plaintiff, Toronto-Dominion Bank, sought summary judgment against Michael D’Cruz and Rosalind D’Cruz to set aside a $94,000 payment made by Michael to Rosalind in February 2022, shortly before Michael’s bankruptcy.

The court found that the payment constituted a preference under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and was void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, as it gave Rosalind preferential treatment over other creditors.

The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $94,000 and provided directions for costs.

The applicants sought relief under the Ontario Business Corporations Act for payment of 45 percent of the value of PowerNorth Utility Contractors Inc., arising from previous business dealings.

The court found that the applicants were proper complainants under the Act and entitled to remedies, including repayment of investments and services provided.

The court calculated the amounts owed for cash investment, use of premises, equipment, and services, and awarded interest.

The total award was $399,441.90.

The court declined to order a share of profits and urged the parties to agree on costs, noting divided success.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion for default judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently complied with a prior order regarding personal service of the motion record and statement of claim, nor had they provided adequate evidence of efforts to locate and serve the defendants (e.g., title search, license plate searches, skip tracer).

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, with revised dates for renewal upon compliance with the service requirements.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's defamation action.

The action arose from an email the defendant sent to his spouse expressing dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's renovation work.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the email was a private communication between spouses and did not constitute an expression on a matter of public interest.

No costs were awarded.

The defendant, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by the plaintiff, 2689686 Ontario Inc., concerning a roof collapse at a property insured under a Builder's Risk policy.

The court found that the loss was caused by frost and heaving, a peril explicitly excluded by the policy.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's expert opinion or establish an exception to the exclusion.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Lloyd's Underwriters.

The plaintiff purchased three industrial units from the defendant, which were undergoing a delayed conversion into a condominium.

The plaintiff occupied the units under a one-year lease with zero base rent, which expired before the conversion was completed.

The defendant sought base rent for the overholding period from July 2017 to April 2022.

The court found no enforceable agreement for the $8,000 monthly base rent proposed by the defendant but awarded the defendant occupation rent based on unjust enrichment.

The court reduced the entitlement to 35 months due to the defendant's failure to issue invoices or notices, awarding $316,400 inclusive of HST.