Gregory Alexander Peter Tufman

This appeal concerns the Divisional Court's quashing of three Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions, which had declared Tomasz Turkiewicz Custom Masonry Homes (TTCMH) and Brickpol Masonry Corporation (Mr. Turkiewicz's former business) a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, bound TTCMH to a collective agreement, and awarded damages to the Unions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in its application of the reasonableness standard of review, as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov.

The Court of Appeal held that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable, as the Board properly considered the erosion of bargaining rights as a valid labour relations purpose for the related employer declaration, adequately addressed the hiatus between businesses, and made a reasonable damages award.

The appeal was allowed, and the OLRB decisions were restored.

This appeal concerned the capacity of Paul Tanti to enter into a marriage with Sharon Joseph.

Raymond Tanti, Paul's son, appealed the trial judge's decision that the marriage was valid, arguing his father lacked the requisite capacity.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings, holding that the correct legal test for marriage capacity was applied, which requires understanding the nature of the marriage contract and its duties.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including the discounting of non-contemporaneous expert opinions and the reliance on direct lay witness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the marriage.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding him a related employer to his defunct company, binding him to current collective agreements, and imposing a fine for breach.

The applicant had operated a unionized masonry company until a 2007 car accident left him unable to work, leading to personal bankruptcy and the company's dissolution.

Ten years later, he resumed work as a sole proprietor.

The Divisional Court quashed the OLRB decisions, finding it unreasonable that the Board failed to consider whether a related employer declaration served a valid labour relations purpose given the decade-long hiatus and the applicant's circumstances.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and interim injunctive relief to compel the defendants to sign a severance application and to enjoin them from interfering with a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) proceeding.

The defendant Sedona Place Co-Ownership Inc. sought an order directing the proceeding to arbitration.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue involving an interest in land and that damages were not an adequate remedy.

The court also granted the mandatory injunction compelling the severance consent, noting the defendants' breach of the option agreement and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' development.

A prohibitory injunction preventing interference with the LPAT hearing was also granted based on the defendants' past conduct and potential irreparable harm.

The action was stayed to allow the parties to proceed to arbitration on agreed terms, with residual court jurisdiction.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellant mother appealed a finding of contempt and the subsequent penalty imposed for her failure to comply with a final order regarding the respondent father's access to their children.

The motion judge found multiple, wilful breaches of the order, relying heavily on text messages where the appellant explicitly denied the court's authority over her parenting decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the contempt finding or the penalty, which included fines for failing to attend a cooperative parenting program.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting it either could have been produced earlier or did not displace the motion judge's findings.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the entitlement to deposits in a real estate transaction.

The application judge had determined that the respondents were prima facie entitled to the deposits based on the written contracts.

The appellants argued the application should have been converted to an action and raised claims for relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the application was properly authorized under the Rules of Civil Procedure, that there were no material facts in dispute, and that the deposits were true deposits with no evidence of disproportionality or unconscionability.

The plaintiff, Lesia Livska, sought to add Francesca Molina as a defendant and extend the time for setting the action down for trial, following an assault at a bar.

The defendant Amalia Molina sought to set aside a noting in default, and the defendant My Apartment Mississauga sought to dismiss the action.

The court granted the plaintiff's requests, setting aside the noting in default for Amalia, adding Francesca as a defendant under the misnomer doctrine, and extending the set-down date, emphasizing the resolution of matters on their merits.

The Plaintiffs sought summary judgment for a mandatory order directing the issuance of interment rights certificates, a permanent injunction, and damages for breach of contract related to burial plots for their parents.

The mandatory order was resolved by consent during the hearing.

The motion for a permanent injunction was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The court found the Minsk Congregation breached its agreement by failing to timely issue the interment rights certificate, causing the Plaintiffs prejudice in honouring their mother's wishes and Jewish customs.

Damages for loss of peace of mind were awarded to each Plaintiff against the Minsk Congregation, while the motion against Rabbi Spero was dismissed as he acted as an agent.

The respondents transferred their home to the appellant at below market value as part of a scheme to defraud creditors, with an oral agreement for re-conveyance.

When the appellant refused to re-convey the property, the respondents sued for unjust enrichment and a constructive trust.

The trial judge found the agreement of purchase and sale was a sham and ordered a re-conveyance based on unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of unjust enrichment or the 'clean hands' doctrine.