Gregory Gryguc

A payment processing company appealed sanctions imposed after it was found in civil contempt for repeatedly obstructing a court-ordered audit obtained by mandatory injunction under a commercial services agreement.

The appellant argued the penalties were disproportionate, challenged the direction to pay audit costs into court, and sought leave to appeal the contempt-motion costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the arguments depended on unappealed factual findings that the appellant intentionally obstructed the audit and that no basis existed to interfere with the sanctions or the costs order.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that r. 60.11(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not confined to cases where the officer or director has already been found personally in contempt, and remitted the issue of joint and several liability of the sole officer and director for redetermination.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant, a lawyer, to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved an alleged contract where the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs a 10% referral fee for clients referred to him.

The defendant refused to answer questions and produce financial records regarding the allegedly referred clients, claiming the information was irrelevant and protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court found the information relevant to the pleadings and held that the presumptive privilege over the financial records was rebutted, as the plaintiffs were not seeking confidential communications or evidence against the clients.

The court ordered the defendant to produce the requested financial records with any solicitor-client communications redacted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendants in a Simplified Procedure action regarding a defaulted promissory note.

The court declined to grant the motion due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including ambiguity regarding service, the omission of the Noting in Default and Statement of Claim, and the improper reliance on hearsay evidence from the plaintiffs' lawyer on central issues.

The plaintiffs were directed to address the deficiencies and re-file the motion.

The defendants were successful on a motion to set aside an earlier order regarding a Notice of Sale under Mortgage, as the plaintiffs had provided materially incorrect information to the court.

The court found the plaintiffs were careless and reckless in failing to verify the alleged mortgage default, even after the defendants provided clear evidence of payment.

Applying the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $30,500 inclusive.

A law firm sought to collect $5,458.44 in unpaid fees from a former client.

After facing a three-year delay for an assessment hearing under the Solicitors Act, the firm moved for leave to stay the assessment and proceed in Small Claims Court.

The court interpreted section 23 of the Solicitors Act, concluding that it only bars actions on alternative fee arrangements (such as contingency or block fees) and does not prevent a solicitor from suing on a standard hourly retainer agreement.

The court granted the firm leave to bring an action in Small Claims Court.

A defendant sought a declaration that one or more insurers had a duty to defend her in a personal injury action arising from an incident involving a hydraulic lift on a rented truck.

The court analyzed whether coverage was available under multiple automobile policies and a homeowner’s policy, and the priority between them.

Applying the pleadings rule for the duty to defend and the statutory framework under the Insurance Act, the court found that the claim arose from the use or operation of the rented vehicle.

The insurer of the rental truck was held to have the primary duty to defend, while the homeowner’s policy was excess and the other automobile policies did not afford coverage.

The successful plaintiff sought an award of costs following litigation against multiple defendants.

The court considered the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including reasonableness and proportionality of the costs claimed.

Finding that the plaintiff was substantially successful, the court exercised its discretion to award costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff $44,312.35 in costs, inclusive.

The applicant lawyer brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim in professional negligence arising from the drafting of an affidavit used in mortgage transactions allegedly connected to a fraud.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyer failed to investigate the truth of statements made by the affiant and thereby facilitated fraudulent mortgages.

The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the lawyer owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, had no retainer with the plaintiff, and had no obligation to verify the truth of affidavit contents.

The court further held that commissioning or drafting an affidavit does not constitute a representation by the lawyer that its contents are true.

As the plaintiff conceded no other viable cause of action existed, the claim against the lawyer was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiff general contractor brought an action against a roofing contractor and its principals for breach of contract and negligence arising from the installation of a flat roof on a Toronto property.

Expert evidence established that the roof installation failed to comply with manufacturer guidelines and industry standards, lacked a required cover board, and allowed water infiltration into the building.

The defendants alleged that the document signed was merely an estimate and that subsequent leakage resulted from design changes and damage caused by other contractors.

The court found a binding contract existed and accepted expert evidence that the roof was improperly installed and in a failed condition.

Damages were awarded for roof replacement, interim repairs, crane costs, and documented cleanup expenses.

The plaintiff contractor sued a corporation and its director for breach of contract arising from unpaid plumbing and drainage services.

The parties had orally settled the debt by reducing the amount owed and arranging repayment through a loan amortization schedule, but no written settlement agreement or personal guarantee was executed.

The plaintiff alleged the director personally guaranteed repayment of the corporate debt.

The court found the evidence did not establish that the director promised a personal guarantee.

In any event, any such oral guarantee would be unenforceable under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds because it was not in writing and signed.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an alleged oral right of first refusal for a 123-acre property, or alternatively, specific performance of a written agreement of purchase and sale for a 10-15 acre severed parcel.

The court found no oral agreement existed for the right of first refusal, and even if it did, it was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as the plaintiff's property maintenance did not constitute part performance.

The court also declined to order specific performance of the written agreement because expert evidence established that obtaining the necessary land severance was highly improbable.

The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim to validate the transfer and remove certificates of pending litigation was granted.

The plaintiff, a former residential tenant, brought an action against his former landlord for damages resulting from a rat bite and poor maintenance of his unit.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court dismissed the action, finding that under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over claims relating to a landlord's failure to maintain a residential unit.