H. Keith Juriansz

The court considered whether a binding and enforceable settlement was reached between the parties following mediation and subsequent email exchanges.

The Applicant sought an order to enforce the settlement terms, while the Respondent argued that no binding agreement existed due to the absence of a signed document and unresolved essential terms.

The court found that the parties had reached consensus on all essential terms, as evidenced by their conduct and correspondence, and that the agreement was enforceable despite not meeting the formal requirements of a domestic contract under the Family Law Act.

The Applicant’s motion was granted, and a final order was issued in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant estate trustee sought leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property solely owned by the deceased's former common-law partner, claiming a 50 percent beneficial interest via constructive trust.

The respondent challenged the applicant's standing as the proceeding was commenced before the estate certificate was issued.

The court found the applicant had standing under Rule 9.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a CPL, finding insufficient evidence of a triable issue regarding an interest in land, as the applicant's evidence of the deceased's financial contributions was largely uncorroborated hearsay.

The court ordered the respondent to return the deceased's personal property and awarded fixed costs of $15,000 to the respondent.

This ruling addresses the costs of a six-day trial concerning a father's motion to change and a mother's response, primarily focused on spousal support and child support termination.

The court had previously dismissed the father's claims to set aside a consent order and terminate spousal support, and the mother's claim for student loan contributions, while ordering increased spousal support for the mother without a termination date.

The mother sought approximately $80,000 in costs, and the father argued for no costs or a maximum of $15,000.

The court found the mother to be the successful party on the most significant issue (spousal support) and awarded her $55,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The decision considered the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' behaviour, and offers to settle, ultimately declining to impose increased costs for unreasonable behaviour.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defending a motion to extend an interim injunction.

The court declined to award costs immediately, exercising its discretion to defer costs to the cause.

The court reasoned that the defendants might ultimately be found liable at trial for serious breaches of fiduciary duty and unfair competition, making an immediate costs award inappropriate.

The court also noted the defendants violated formatting rules by submitting single-spaced materials to circumvent page limits.

The plaintiffs moved to continue an interim injunction granted a year prior, which prohibited the defendants (former fiduciary employees) from soliciting the plaintiffs' customers and employees.

The court dismissed the motion to extend the injunction, finding that the one-year period had already provided the plaintiffs with a reasonable amount of time to solidify their customer relationships and protect their goodwill from the defendants' unfair 'springboard' competition.

The court also directed the proceedings into case management.

The father brought a motion to change to terminate child and spousal support, and to set aside a prior consent order regarding child support termination dates.

The mother responded, seeking an increase in spousal support due to her permanent disability and the father's increased income, as well as a retroactive contribution to the adult children's student loans.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the consent order and his request to terminate spousal support, finding the mother remained permanently disabled and in need.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses due to lack of timely notice and insufficient evidence.

Ultimately, the court ordered an increase in ongoing spousal support to meet the mother's needs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action against the defendant company and its alleged director.

The company opposed the motion, arguing the mortgage was a 'fraudulent instrument' under the Land Titles Act because the director fraudulently held herself out as an officer of the company to obtain the mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that even if the allegations of fraud were true, the director was not a 'fictitious person' and did not hold herself out to be the registered owner of the property, meaning the mortgage did not meet the statutory definition of a fraudulent instrument.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash an appeal brought by the respondent, Ms. LaFontaine.

The appellant, Mr. Froom, had appealed an interlocutory order from the Superior Court of Justice.

The motion judge had adjourned Ms. LaFontaine's motion to trial, imposing terms including a requirement for Mr. Froom to deposit US$475,000 into court.

The Court of Appeal determined that the underlying order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore an appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not directly to the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed, and Mr. Froom's request to transfer the appeal to the Divisional Court was denied.

Costs were awarded to Ms. LaFontaine.

This endorsement addresses the question of costs following the plaintiff's unsuccessful motion for the release of funds held in trust.

The defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff did not oppose a costs award but argued for a lower amount, citing procedural delays and duplication of effort.

The court, applying principles of indemnity, proportionality, and reasonable expectation, fixed the defendant's costs at $11,500, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion seeking the release of over $1.1 million held in trust by its counsel.

The funds had been paid into trust pursuant to a consent order to replace a vendor take-back mortgage on the subject property, pending a final determination of the amount owing to the defendant vendor.

The plaintiff argued that the funds should be released because the agreed-upon timetable for resolving the dispute had passed, the trust arrangement amounted to execution before judgment, and the plaintiff had sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order did not provide for the release of the security if the timetable was not met, that holding agreed-upon security is not execution before judgment, and that the court has no jurisdiction to deprive a secured creditor of its security simply because the debtor has other assets.

The moving party brought motions to declare the plaintiffs' construction liens expired under the Construction Lien Act.

The substantive relief was granted on consent.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court declined to award costs to the moving party, finding that its counsel had engaged in sharp practice by failing to respond to correspondence from opposing counsel that revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that correcting this clear mistake would not have sacrificed the client's rights and that the motions could have been brought ex parte or in writing.

A commercial real estate deal involving three properties failed to close.

The plaintiff, NJS Capital Management Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rectification, or rescission based on unconscionability, arguing the deals were cross-conditional and a package.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the contracts and dismissing the counterclaims, concluding there was no oral agreement for cross-conditionality or misrepresentation, and the contracts were not unconscionable.

The parties separated after a 19-year marriage.

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement that resolved property issues and waived spousal support.

The respondent sought to set aside the agreement, alleging duress and lack of financial disclosure, particularly regarding the applicant's pension and her own foreign properties.

The court upheld the separation agreement regarding property, finding no duress or material non-disclosure.

However, applying the Miglin framework, the court set aside the spousal support waiver, finding it did not meet the objectives of the Divorce Act given the respondent's economic disadvantage and hardship.

The court imputed income to the respondent, calculated her child support obligations, and ordered the applicant to pay net spousal support of $787.00 per month.

A dispute arose following the sale of business equipment and inventory under a written agreement.

The plaintiff sold chattels for a fixed price and agreed that the inventory would be counted and paid at invoice price, but the defendants refused to pay for the inventory, disputing the count and alleging breach of a subsequent non‑competition agreement.

The court found the purchasing corporation adopted the pre‑incorporation contract under s. 21 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act and that the individual defendant was not personally liable.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s inventory valuation and rejected the defendants’ competing count.

The non‑competition agreement was held invalid for lack of fresh consideration and because it was obtained under economic duress.

The plaintiff appealed a master's report following a lengthy construction lien trial arising from a residential development joint venture.

The appellant argued that the master committed factual and legal errors in rejecting several claims for extras, carpentry services, site supervision services, and in finding that the plaintiff’s construction lien rights had expired.

The court held that the applicable standard of review required substantial deference to a master conducting a trial on a reference, particularly regarding findings of fact and credibility.

After reviewing transcripts and documentary evidence, the court concluded that the alleged errors largely involved disagreements over credibility assessments and weight of evidence.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law, the court confirmed the master’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

The individual defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against him personally for negligent misrepresentation regarding a home theatre installation.

The court found no evidence that the individual defendant made representations in his personal capacity or that any representations were knowingly false.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the claim against the individual defendant was dismissed, with costs fixed at $10,000.

Following earlier reasons, the court addressed clarification requests and determined costs arising from an application concerning enforcement of a settlement agreement.

The applicant succeeded in enforcing payment of £62,000 pursuant to a signed direction, which the respondent had unreasonably delayed delivering.

However, the applicant was unsuccessful on the most contentious issue concerning entitlement to funds in a jointly held Swiss bank account.

Finding divided success and excessive claimed hours in responding to a motion for directions, the court applied Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

Following a trial in a construction lien matter, the court determined the issues of costs and the disposition of cash security posted to vacate the liens.

The court declined to award costs to either party due to divided success and the conduct of the parties, including the plaintiff's deliberate preservation of expired lien rights and exaggerated claims.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to have the cash security paid into court as a 'specific fund' under Rule 45.02, finding no evidence that the balance of convenience favoured the order.

The cash security was ordered returned to the defendant MJR.

The applicant sought to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement accepted under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to a family dispute over funds held in a joint bank account and payment of £62,000.

The central dispute concerned whether the settlement required that the applicant be solely entitled to withdraw all funds from the joint account once restrictions were removed.

The court held that the executed settlement did not explicitly provide that the funds would be for the applicant’s exclusive use and that a third party joint account holder, who was not a party to the litigation or settlement, could not be bound by the agreement.

The court therefore declined to interpret the settlement as granting exclusive entitlement to the account funds but enforced the agreed payment and the obligation to arrange removal of restrictions on the account.

The plaintiff framing contractor brought three construction lien actions against the defendants arising from a joint venture to purchase, sever, and redevelop residential lots.

The court found that the plaintiff was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act and was owed $70,400 for its contract scope of work plus $21,824.43 for conceded extras.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for site supervision and other extras, finding they were part of the plaintiff's principal's obligations to the joint venture.

The court also held that the plaintiff's lien rights had expired before registration, as the work allegedly done within the 45-day period was not performed by the plaintiff.

The claims for lien were discharged and judgment was granted for breach of contract.