Heather J. Williams

The plaintiffs, a real estate agent and her brokerage, sued the defendant for defamation and unjust enrichment.

The defamation claim arose from a letter the defendant sent to the brokerage and others, complaining about the agent's conduct and invoicing after a real estate transaction fell through due to a dispute over a buyer representation agreement.

The unjust enrichment claim was for services rendered by the agent.

The court found that while some statements in the defendant's letter were defamatory and made with malice, the defence of qualified privilege applied because malice was not the dominant purpose of the communication.

The defence of fair comment also failed due to untrue factual statements.

However, the court found that the plaintiff's own conduct disentitled her to damages for defamation.

The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as the defendant was not enriched, and there was a juristic reason for any perceived enrichment.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiffs, commercial tenants, obtained an interim interlocutory injunction prohibiting the defendant landlord from forfeiture actions.

The landlord subsequently sought to set aside the injunction, while the tenants sought its continuation pending a summary judgment motion regarding the enforceability of minutes of settlement that purportedly amended the lease.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the minutes of settlement, irreparable harm to the tenants if the injunction was not continued, and that the balance of convenience favoured continuation.

The court dismissed the landlord's motion to set aside the injunction and ordered its continuation until the summary judgment motion, with the tenants providing undertakings for damages.

The plaintiff, Rosemary Sheldon, succeeded in her personal injury action against the defendant, Manuel Reyna, following a 15-day judge-alone trial.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's requests for correction of a damages award for gardening services, prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, costs on a partial indemnity basis, and an order for periodic payments.

The court confirmed the total judgment amount, awarded prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and granted partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, with a minor reduction in disbursements.

An order for periodic payments was also made.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) was successful in its application to enforce guarantees against Anwar Fares and Maya Bakhos, and in opposing the guarantors' application for a declaration that the guarantees were invalid.

The court, therefore, addressed the issue of costs.

TD sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual provisions in the loan agreement and guarantees.

The court, exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found TD entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court adjusted the claimed amount, disallowing certain disbursements (flights to Ottawa, unexplained courier/taxi fees) and assessing fees based on proportionality and the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectation, ultimately ordering the guarantors to pay TD $25,723.03.

The applicant sought an order without notice to dispense with service of a notice of application on 79 registered homeowners.

The underlying application sought to remove a restrictive covenant from two lots to allow for a new road.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that service was impractical under rule 16.04(1) based merely on cost and potential delay.

The court dismissed the request to dispense with service but ordered substituted service by leaving copies at the homes and sending them by regular mail.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary order to stay the mother's application to change their son's name from William Jr. Ndze Fuhgeh to William Benjamin Ndze Fuhgeh Bernard.

The father's main application sought to prohibit the mother from changing the child's name without his consent.

The court granted the temporary stay, finding it was not in the child's best interests for the name change application to proceed immediately, as ongoing case-managed matters and the father's main application might clarify relevant issues.

Costs were reserved to the judge overseeing the father's main application.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank sought judgment against a corporation and its personal guarantors for a defaulted small business loan.

The guarantors, a married couple, sought a declaration that their personal guarantees were invalid, arguing they were misled about the extent of their liability (believing it was limited to 25% of the outstanding loan, not unlimited as indicated by an 'x' in the form).

The court found the guarantees were unlimited, rejected arguments based on CSBFA regulations as irrelevant to the bank-customer relationship, and dismissed the non est factum defence due to the guarantors' failure to read the documents and the presence of a "no representations" clause.

Judgment was granted in favour of the bank.

The plaintiff, Daly Square Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action seeking approximately $130,000 plus interest and possession of the mortgaged property, and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants, 1786097 Ontario Inc. and Camille Mikhael, opposed, arguing for equitable set-off and that their $500,000 counterclaim for property damage was not statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on both its claim and the defendants' counterclaim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding equitable set-off and the limitation period for the counterclaim.

The court also ruled that the defendants were not entitled to legal set-off.

The plaintiffs sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion for leave to register certificates of pending litigation.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the principle of indemnity and the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectations.

Despite the plaintiffs' higher actual costs, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, balancing the parties' expectations and the motion's importance to the plaintiffs, though it was not complex.

Costs were fixed at $7,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

This summary trial addressed the plaintiff landlord's claim for damages following the defendant tenant's wrongful repudiation of a commercial lease.

The court determined whether the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate his losses after the tenant vacated the premises early and calculated the damages owed.

The court found that the landlord's mitigation efforts were reasonable given the local market conditions and awarded damages for unpaid rent, the present value of the rent differential with a new tenant, and interest.

The applicants, Ahmed Abou-Gabal and Velika Realty Inc., brought a motion seeking certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against properties owned by Jovalyn and Derian Tuitt.

The applicants' counterclaim referenced alleged mortgages and defaults but did not explicitly claim an interest in land or seek remedies like foreclosure or sale.

The court found that the counterclaim, as pleaded, did not establish an interest in land in question, which is a prerequisite for issuing a CPL.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if an interest in land had been established, the properties were not unique, and damages would likely be an adequate remedy, which would also weigh against granting a CPL.

The motion for CPLs was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support retroactively, alleging the respondent misrepresented his income and falsified financial documents.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility due to a pattern of concealing income and falsifying records.

While most of the respondent's claimed business expenses (mileage allowances, car payments, insurance, cell, internet, gas heating, bookkeeping) were rejected, the court allowed a deduction of one-third of claimed gas and repair expenses.

The respondent's 2014 gross income was also adjusted upwards based on new evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, involving minor plaintiffs.

The proposed settlement of $250,000.00 included an allocation of $1,000.00 for each minor.

The court declined to approve the settlement due to concerns about a potential conflict of interest between the litigation guardian and the minor plaintiffs, the absence of proposed minutes of settlement, and the proposal to pay funds into RESPs instead of into court as required by Rule 7.09(1).

The court requested additional evidence to assess whether the settlement was in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs.