Gregory M. Sidlofsky

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated July 26, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, fixed in the amount of $7,000.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the respondent, citing terminal illness.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it would cause him severe personal, emotional, and financial hardship amounting to oppression, and would prejudice his ongoing family law claims for resulting or constructive trust over the property.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for partition and sale, finding that the respondent had demonstrated sufficient hardship and that his trust claims were not frivolous and required a full trial.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief regarding a second property, deeming the issue hypothetical and subject to alternative dispute resolution or the family law proceeding.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant Rosy Moses.

The underlying litigation involves a family dispute over the ownership and control of corporate entities, with claims based on proprietary estoppel.

The motion addressed the relevance of questions concerning Rosy Moses's testamentary intentions, the production of accountant and will drafting files, and transfers of assets to Rachel Moses.

A significant portion of the motion also dealt with the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document.

The court ruled on the relevance of various questions, compelling some answers related to asset equalization and family dynamics, while upholding refusals for others, particularly those concerning inadvertently disclosed privileged documents.

The court found a mixed success rate for both parties and ordered no costs.

Dag Hrvoic appealed a trial judgment that found equal shareholdings between him and Melissa Hrvoic in a co-founded company and ordered him to purchase Melissa's shares.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings on the shareholding agreement, company valuation, the application of the "clean hands" doctrine, and the commencement of the limitation period for Melissa's claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions, including the existence of an agreement for equal shareholdings and the proper application of the Limitations Act.

The plaintiffs moved to remove Minden Gross LLP as counsel for the defendant corporations, Metro Hardware and 218 Ontario, alleging that a partner in the firm, Rachel Moses (sister of plaintiff Reuben Moses), and other firm members would be necessary witnesses at trial, and that counsel displayed improperly partisan conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no strict rule against a lawyer's partner testifying, that Rachel Moses did not intend to testify, and that the motion appeared tactical and was brought late in the proceedings.

The court emphasized the right to counsel of choice and that any potential conflict was speculative.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Chalmers J. dated March 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, fixed in the amount of $3,000 all-inclusive.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision on two related applications.

The Umbrio Parties were partially successful in their application, securing a net payment of $69,256.

The court rejected the Leonardelli Parties' argument that their offer to settle, though close, should shift costs under Rule 49.13, finding the difference material.

The Umbrio Parties sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs, stating that litigation complexity alone does not justify a higher scale.

For the cross-application, the court found divided success and awarded no costs.

Ultimately, the Umbrio Parties were awarded $40,000 in partial indemnity costs for their application.

The appellant sought a review of a chambers judge's order that partially lifted an automatic stay pending appeal, arguing the judge erred in finding financial hardship without sufficient evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's motion for review, finding no error in principle or unreasonable result in the chambers judge's exercise of discretion under Rule 63.01(5).

The court affirmed that the chambers judge correctly applied the factors for lifting a stay, including financial hardship, ability to repay, and appeal merits, and that the appellant's own admission regarding the minimum amount owed supported the decision.

This case involved cross-applications concerning the dissolution of a business partnership between two investment professionals, Rick Umbrio and Sandra Leonardelli, who co-owned Silveroak Wealth Management Inc. Disputes arose over post-closing adjustments to the purchase price for Leonardelli's shares, division of bank account balances, entitlement to commissions, and liabilities under a sublease agreement.

The court interpreted the Letter Agreement governing the transaction, applying principles of contractual interpretation to determine the correct post-closing adjustment for client assets under management (AUM) and the entitlement to commissions.

The court also addressed claims of breach of a sublease agreement.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two motions arising from an appeal of a trial decision concerning the division of a business.

The appellant sought to file an extended factum, which was unopposed and granted.

The respondent moved to lift an automatic stay of enforcement for a portion of the trial judgment, arguing financial hardship and that the amount represented the appellant's "best position" even if successful on appeal.

The court granted the motion to lift the stay for $1,874,400, finding demonstrable hardship to the respondent, minimal risk of non-recovery for the appellant given his admitted liability, and that the appeal on factual findings was not strong.

The order included a proportional transfer of shares to the appellant upon payment.

This appeal addressed a pre-contractual negligent misrepresentation and the interpretation of a commercial lease.

The trial judge found that the tenant (respondent) reasonably relied on the landlord's (appellant's) negligent misrepresentation regarding free, accessible, and convenient customer parking, and that the entire agreement provision in the lease did not preclude the tenant's claim for damages.

On appeal, the landlord argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider the lease as a whole, specifically articles related to parking, which it contended formed part of the "subject matter" of the lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that customer parking was not the "subject matter" of the lease and that the entire agreement clause did not preclude the claim, applying a deferential standard of review for contractual interpretation.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The appellant law firm appealed a Superior Court order that set aside an Associate Judge's decision to reinstate their action, which had been dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly identified legal errors in the Associate Judge's application of the Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. test for reinstating actions dismissed for delay.

Specifically, the Associate Judge erred by treating periods of delay in isolation and by focusing on whether delay was "forgivable" rather than "sufficiently explained" despite evidence of egregious and unexplained delays.

The Court affirmed the motion judge's appropriate application of appellate jurisdiction and deference principles.

The appellants, Eugene Bokserman and Elena Krasnov, appealed a summary judgment that found a fraudulent conveyance of their jointly held home and awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the conveyance was fraudulent, the refusal to admit fresh evidence, the determination that the action was not statute-barred, and the substantial indemnity costs award.

The court affirmed the motion judge's ability to assess credibility and weigh evidence in a summary judgment context and found no error in the application of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act or the Limitations Act.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim arising from the sale of a gas station business.

The court found the claim was irregular as it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against one defendant, lacked required particulars for allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and created a multiplicity of proceedings by raising issues that should have been addressed in an existing parallel action between the parties.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

Following their separation, the parties disputed the ownership and value of their jointly built business, Holdco.

The applicant claimed he owned 70% of the common shares, while the respondent claimed a 50% ownership based on their post-separation conduct and equal dividend payments.

The court found the respondent owned 50% of the shares, noting that the corporate records were inaccurate and the applicant had treated the respondent as an equal owner.

The court also held that the claim was not statute-barred and valued the business at $10,800,000, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $5,400,000 for her shares.

The plaintiff tenant entered into a 10-year commercial lease for a café in a new condominium development.

The tenant later abandoned the premises and sued the defendant landlord for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the landlord falsely represented the occupancy dates of surrounding buildings and the availability of convenient, free customer parking.

The court found the landlord negligently misrepresented the parking situation by failing to disclose that a shared facilities committee and condominium concierges would control access, creating significant barriers for retail customers.

The court held that the entire agreement clause in the lease did not preclude the tort claim because it did not address free customer parking.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for operating losses and build-out costs, and the landlord's counterclaim for breach of lease was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application to declare his late father's 2019 will invalid due to undue influence.

The application judge found the appellant lacked standing under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Estates Act, as an earlier 1996 will (under which he was not a beneficiary) would take effect if the 2019 will was set aside.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the application judge's reasoning regarding standing and the onus on the appellant to adduce evidence challenging the 1996 will's validity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff intends to bring a motion to order the sale of the subject property.

The defendants do not necessarily object to the sale, but there is no agreement on the terms.

The court established a timetable for the motion materials and scheduled a case conference to explore resolving the contested issues before the motion hearing.