Gregory M. Sidlofsky

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a municipal by-law authorizing the sale of a surplus strip of land to an adjacent property owner, and moved to review a single judge's decision denying leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court declined to consider the merits of the judicial review application, finding the sale was a private transaction of limited public character, the applicants had delayed in pursuing their interest, and the transaction had already closed with a bona fide purchaser for value.

The court also dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation, as the applicants could not establish a triable interest in the land.

Following a trial where the plaintiff succeeded in claims of oppression and fraud against two defendants, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $385,353.72 against the two main defendants, finding their conduct—including a fraudulent sham purchase and willful refusal to comply with a court order—to be reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous.

A corporate co-defendant was held jointly and severally liable for 35% of those costs due to the plaintiff's success on a contract rescission claim.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action arose from a social media post by the respondent about Halal mortgages, which the appellant claimed referred to him and his former company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the post related to a matter of public interest and that the appellant failed to show the defamation claim had substantial merit, as the impugned words did not identify him.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

This costs decision follows the court's substantive orders of September 23, 2025 (2025 ONSC 4703).

The applicants sought $65,000 in costs based on a legal bill of $115,110.

Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd. sought $58,407 based on a legal bill of $93,185.

Peter Jackson claimed $21,719 based on a legal bill of $33,014.

The court found that the applicants' allegations of domestic abuse and misappropriation, which failed to be proven, escalated the litigation.

The court awarded costs to Peter Jackson in the amount of $21,719.44 on a partial indemnity scale, payable by the applicants.

No costs were awarded as between the applicants and Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the corporate responding party and $5,000 to the individual responding parties.

A dispute arising from a failed gas station development venture.

The plaintiff invested $350,000 for a 50% interest in a company owning a property in Thorndale, Ontario, with the defendant agreeing to complete development obligations in exchange for a 50% interest for $50.

The relationship deteriorated due to lack of communication and delays.

The defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation and commenced litigation.

The property was eventually returned to the original company.

The court found the defendants liable for oppression and fraud, ordered a shotgun buy-sell arrangement based on independent appraisal, and awarded damages at large.

The Estate Trustee of a deceased shareholder sought oppression remedy relief and alleged breach of natural justice regarding the valuation of the deceased's 50% shareholding in a steel fabrication company.

The valuation was conducted by a professional valuator (Crowe) pursuant to a shareholders agreement.

The Estate Trustee challenged the valuation methodology, claiming the respondent director provided inaccurate and self-serving information regarding holdback amounts, related party expenses, and goodwill attribution.

The Estate Trustee also claimed it should have been involved in the valuation process.

The court dismissed the application, finding no oppression and holding that natural justice principles do not apply to expert determinations under commercial contracts.

This case arose from a family dispute following a corporate restructuring in September 2020 involving two patio furnishings businesses operated by spouses Kimberley and Steven Jackson.

The applicants sought to invalidate the transfer of nine shares in Distinctly Patio Inc. (DPI) to their son Peter, claiming the transfer was funded through an unauthorized bonus paid by DPI to Peter.

The applicants also sought an accounting for profits allegedly earned by 2131376 Ontario Ltd. (operating as Think Patio) in violation of a non-competition clause in the DPI shareholders' agreement.

The respondents relied on a two-year limitation period defense.

The court found that while Peter became a shareholder despite not signing the shareholders' agreement, the applicants' claims based on the bonus and share transfer were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim on the merits, finding insufficient evidence of misappropriation.

However, the court found that Steven and 2131376 likely breached the non-competition clause and ordered an accounting reference.

The court also granted Peter's counterapplication for oppression remedies, ordering DPI to redeem his shares for $17,167.42.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a motion for injunctive relief brought by Mondee, Inc. and related plaintiffs against Voyzant Inc. and several individual defendants.

The court granted limited injunctive relief to Mondee, primarily the return and destruction of its information, but dismissed broader relief sought against the defendants.

The court found that the defendants were more successful on the substantive issues and awarded costs to Voyzant Inc. and the non-Binning departing employees, while denying costs to Jasvinder Binning due to his conduct.

The court declined to award Mondee its costs, holding that costs should generally be reserved to the trial judge where a trial is likely.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert and Catherine Hurst, who challenged their removal as estate trustees of the Estate of Ruth Eileen Stevens MacBeth.

The court upheld the motion judge’s discretionary decisions to deny an adjournment, remove the Hursts as trustees, and order a $50,000 holdback from the estate.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s application of the legal tests and awarded costs against the appellants personally, concluding the appeal was unnecessary and not in the interests of the estate.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The decision resolves competing applications regarding the ownership and directorship of 2761499 Ontario Inc. (“276”) and related financial claims among parties involved in several investment companies.

The court finds that Gurvinder Singh Saini and Najinder Garcha are the only directors and shareholders of 276, rejecting Minkle Mittal’s claim to ownership or directorship.

The court also dismisses Mittal and Golden Freight Forwarding and Marketing Inc.’s counter-application for relief regarding other companies, finding no evidentiary basis for their claims.

Costs are awarded to Saini and Garcha.

This endorsement addresses the awarding of full indemnity costs to the Defendants following the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that several indicia of anti-SLAPP litigation were present, including a history of litigation against critics, a punitive purpose, and minimal damages.

The Plaintiffs did not provide costs submissions or arguments against the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs.

The court found the quantum of costs sought to be reasonable and noted that the Plaintiffs’ conduct increased litigation costs.

The Defendants were awarded $64,359.30 in costs, payable within 30 days.

This endorsement addresses objections by John J. McAteer to the passing of accounts by the respondents as estate trustees for the estates of their late parents.

The court considers the applicant's entitlement to production of documents, especially those relating to corporations managed by the respondents as attorneys for property for their mother.

The court emphasizes the principle of fiduciary accountability and transparency, discusses proportionality in production, and addresses issues regarding interim distribution and mediation.

The court orders production of relevant documents (with a minor exception), declines to order an interim distribution or mediation at this stage, and directs the parties to cooperate on scheduling.

The court dismissed a defamation action brought by UM Financial Inc., Omar Kalair, and Yusuf Panchbhaya against Ronald Butler and Butler Mortgage Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that a social media post by Mr. Butler defamed them by referencing a halal mortgage organization that "ripped off its clients years ago & embezzled people’s money." The court found that UM Financial lacked standing as an undischarged bankrupt, and that the impugned words did not refer to the plaintiffs specifically.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to show substantial merit to their claim, failed to show the defendants had no valid defences, and failed to demonstrate that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to transfer a pending application from the Waterloo Region to the Commercial List in Toronto and consolidate it with an existing action.

The court granted the motion, finding that both proceedings involved an overlapping factual matrix, common transactions, and a significant risk of inconsistent findings if determined separately.

The decision emphasized the principles of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, preventing inconsistent judicial decisions, preserving scarce judicial resources, and saving costs for the parties.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs to the Plaintiffs.

The defendants, a lawyer and his law firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's solicitor's negligence claim.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached their duties while representing him in a partnership arbitration, specifically by failing to seek a dissolution of the partnership at the outset.

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to determine how the arbitration would have unfolded had the dissolution been sought early, and thus a genuine issue for trial existed regarding causation and loss of chance.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of CIBC's motion for partial summary judgment.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs, while the unsuccessful plaintiff requested "costs in the cause." The court determined that partial indemnity costs should follow the event, particularly for partial summary judgment motions, due to the inherent risk undertaken by the moving party.

The court awarded the defendants $26,880.00 in costs, a reduction from their requested amount due to the lack of detailed dockets in their costs outline.

The plaintiff, CIBC, brought a motion for partial summary judgment on a debt claim of $856,602.80 arising from margin calls on an online trading account, and to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants argued they had placed stop loss orders that CIBC failed to execute.

CIBC also had a separate claim for fraudulent conveyance against the defendants, which was not part of the summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the stop loss orders and a real risk of inconsistent findings of fact if the debt claim was severed from the fraudulent conveyance claim.

This case involved a dispute between a mother and son over the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly-owned cottage property.

The mother sought an equal 50/50 division, while the son claimed entitlement to a larger share based on significant renovations and maintenance he undertook, arguing unjust enrichment.

The court found an enforceable oral agreement where the son received a joint tenancy interest in exchange for undertaking renovations at his own expense.

Alternatively, the court determined that an equal division was not unjust, as the son's contributions were offset by the benefit of his ownership interest and use of the property, and there was no reasonable expectation that the joint tenancy would not be severed or the property sold during the mother's lifetime.