H. Keith Juriansz

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.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis for three motions, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and unreasonably by failing to provide financial disclosure and thwarting a settlement conference.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments that his behaviour was reasonable and that costs should be deferred.

Finding the respondent's conduct warranted full recovery, the court awarded the applicant $22,000 in costs, to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

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.

On an interim custody motion and cross‑motion involving four young children, the court considered competing requests for parallel parenting and sole custody.

The mother sought temporary sole custody with limited access for the father based largely on allegations of domestic violence and an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending that arrangement.

The father sought a parallel‑parenting structure and equal time.

Applying s. 16 of the Divorce Act and best‑interests principles, the court found significant credibility concerns regarding several abuse allegations and determined the status quo created after separation resulted largely from unilateral conduct by the mother.

The court declined to grant sole or joint custody and instead ordered a temporary divided parallel‑parenting regime allocating decision‑making authority between the parents and gradually expanding the father’s parenting time toward a structured rotating schedule.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment arising from an equipment lease dispute after she claimed she first learned of the action when served with a notice of examination in aid of execution.

The court applied the test from HSBC Securities Canada Inc. v. Firestar Capital Management Corp., considering delay, explanation for default, and whether there was an arguable defence on the merits.

Although the motion was brought without unreasonable delay, the defendant failed to provide a plausible explanation for the default and did not rebut evidence of personal service.

The court also held that her proposed defence—that the lender should have ensured she obtained independent legal advice before signing as co-lessee and guarantor—was not arguable in the absence of undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was therefore dismissed.

Following the settlement of a motion seeking to determine and fix the owner’s statutory holdback under the Construction Lien Act, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The moving subcontractor argued that the owner delayed addressing the holdback issue, necessitating the motion and increasing litigation costs, and sought enhanced partial indemnity costs.

The responding party argued the motion was over-lawyered and that only minimal costs should be awarded.

The court held that the motion produced a successful result by compelling the owner to fund an interim holdback available for distribution to subcontractors, entitling the moving party to costs.

However, no exceptional circumstances justified enhanced costs, and a fair and proportionate partial indemnity award was fixed.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was unreasonable.

The defendant argued no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, sought its own costs for relief resolved prior to the motion.

The court found the defendant's motion was not unreasonable based on the pleadings and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $7,000, declining to award the defendant costs for the pre-motion resolved issues.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add a new cause of action.

The defendant argued the new claim was time-barred and relied on Rule 62.02(4), asserting the motion judge's decision conflicted with other cases on discoverability under the Limitations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that a failure to apply established principles does not constitute a conflicting decision requiring resolution under the Rule.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding adverse possession and the subsequent costs award based on an offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied the proper test for adverse possession and made factual findings well supported by the record.

The trial judge's view of the offer to settle was also deemed reasonable.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a trial judge's decision disallowing its claims for security services and realty taxes against the respondent, who owned a commercial underground parking garage below the condominium.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the Parking Garage Agreement, finding no obligation for the respondent to pay for security services and affirming a subsequent agreement regarding realty taxes.

The respondent's cross-appeal was allowed in part to correct the formal judgment and to declare claims prior to July 4, 1995, statute-barred.

The appellant's wife forged a power of attorney in his name to obtain mortgages from the respondents to pay off gambling debts.

The appellant, who was unaware of the fraud, argued the mortgages were void.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent mortgagees, finding the mortgages valid under the Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under sections 78(4) and 155 of the Land Titles Act, the mortgages, having been given for valuable consideration and without notice of the fraud, were effective once registered.

The moving parties sought to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal refusing a stay of an order enforcing Letters Rogatory from a California court.

They argued the original Letters Rogatory were null and void, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried.

The court held that under s. 60 of the Evidence Act, jurisdiction is established when it is made to appear that a foreign court has duly authorized a request, and the moving parties failed to challenge the validity of the request at the original hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision enforcing letters rogatory issued by a California court against non-parties in Ontario.

The motion judge had found the evidence of the Ontario residents to be relevant and narrowed the scope of documentary production.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.