Grant R. Dow

The applicant client sought payment of funds held in trust following an assessment of a solicitor's account at nil.

The respondent law firm brought a cross-motion seeking to rely on a previous notice of motion or, alternatively, an extension of time to appeal the Superseding Report and Certificate of Assessment.

The court held that the law firm could not rely on its previous motion, which had been fully disposed of.

However, applying the factors for extending the time to appeal, the court granted the law firm an extension on the conditions that it serve its notice of motion, transfer the disputed funds to the applicant's counsel in trust, and pay the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment on a liquidated amount arising from a loan and guarantee agreement.

Despite the lack of a factum and issues with the calculation of the contractual interest rate, the court was satisfied that the individual defendant had notice of the lawsuit.

The court granted default judgment for the principal balance of $54,711.74, along with pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 4.0 percent, and partial indemnity costs.

The applicant and respondent, who are siblings, each own a 50% interest in a residential property.

The applicant commenced an application for partition and sale of the property.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order to compel the applicant to sell his 50% interest to her at fair market value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Partition Act, it lacks the jurisdiction to force one joint tenant to sell their interest to the other.

The court declined to award costs to the successful applicant to encourage the parties to expeditiously proceed with the open market sale of the property.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit a former employee from accepting business from its clients.

The defendant admitted to forwarding confidential client information to her personal email before resigning to join a competitor.

While the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of employment obligations, it concluded the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as existing court orders already restrained the misuse of confidential information and any potential loss of revenue could be quantified in damages.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendant.

The motion for further injunctive relief was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment against the defendants for failing to deliver seven luxury watches purchased for $141,500 USD and failing to remit proceeds from three consigned handbags valued at $61,000 USD.

The defendants, who were self-represented, failed to respond to a Request to Admit and sought an adjournment at trial which was denied as the matter was peremptory.

The court granted judgment against both defendants jointly and severally for the Canadian equivalent of $194,500 USD, with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, but dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

Costs were deferred to the judicial official who determines the outstanding counterclaim.

The self-represented plaintiff claimed damages for a traumatic brain injury allegedly sustained when her head struck the rearview mirror of a city bus.

She alleged the bus suddenly lowered as she walked past it.

The court found no negligence on the part of the defendants, concluding the bus was already in a stationary, kneeling position when the plaintiff walked into the mirror.

The court also assessed damages in the alternative, finding the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory verbal threshold under the Insurance Act.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

This is a costs decision following a summary trial in which the plaintiff's action for 50 percent of the defendant's $301,000 casino jackpot winnings was dismissed.

The action was based on alleged breach of an oral contract, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $79,750.65, while the plaintiff argued for a reduced award of $25,000.

The court awarded the defendant $40,773.84 in costs, considering factors including the nature of the dispute, the use of two counsel, conduct issues involving a witness, and the principle that costs awards should be fair and reasonable rather than blindly reflecting actual costs incurred.

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.