Ivan S. Bloom

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for $340,859.77 owed on a line of credit, and for an order dismissing the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant argued the debt claimed was under a different loan and that the bank breached its contract with his wife, who had guaranteed the loan.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the evidence established there was only one loan and that the defendant had no standing to claim breach of the guarantee contract.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff, the counterclaim was dismissed, and full indemnity costs were awarded.

This endorsement addresses two motions brought under Family Law Rule 25(19) to correct errors in a prior judgment.

The Applicant's motion sought to correct a misapprehension of evidence regarding a shared debt's quantum, which the court granted, adjusting the amount from $325,000 to $650,000.

The Respondent Imran Khan's motion sought to reduce a retroactive spousal support lump sum award by considering income tax consequences.

The court dismissed this motion, ruling that FLR 25(19)(b) and (c) do not provide jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions or errors of law, only typographical or mathematical errors, or matters not previously decided.

The accused was tried on charges of assault and sexual assault against his then spouse arising from two incidents in May 2019.

The case turned entirely on credibility and the application of the W.(D.) framework in a two-witness trial.

The court found both the complainant and the accused not credible on important points, including admitted falsehoods in an overseas complaint process and the accused's implausible lack of memory about whether intercourse occurred on the relevant dates.

Viewing the evidence as a whole, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted on all charges.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after her daughter suffered a severe laceration to her forehead.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, alleging the accused intentionally injured the child out of frustration.

The accused testified the injury was an accident caused by a malfunctioning highchair.

Applying the principles from Villoroman and W.(D.), the court found that while the accused's testimony was not fully accepted, it left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an inference that the injury was accidental, resulting in an acquittal.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to exclude the defendants from each other's examinations for discovery and to prevent the sharing of discovery transcripts and information among them.

The underlying action alleged fraudulent transfers of funds and land to thwart the collection of previous judgments.

Applying the Lazar principles, the court found sufficient evidence of deceit and improper conduct to justify the orders to prevent collusion and ensure the integrity of the discovery process.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 13-year relationship.

The parties enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent.

The court awarded interim spousal support of $72,000 per month, finding the applicant established a reasonable case based on the respondent's significant wealth and the parties' standard of living.

The court also awarded $200,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field in the high-conflict litigation, noting the funds were necessary to pay legal and expert professionals.

The defendant general contractor moved to have a subcontractor's construction lien declared expired for failure to preserve it in a timely manner under the Construction Act.

The moving party argued the last bona fide supply of services occurred in December 2019, while the responding party provided uncontradicted affidavit evidence that work continued until February 2020 due to delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the date of the last bona fide supply, as the conflicting evidence and final invoices needed to be tested through cross-examination.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% equitable interest in a real estate property based on an oral joint venture agreement, while the defendants argued the relationship was strictly that of borrower and lender secured by promissory notes and a mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the parties' relationship raised significant credibility issues that constituted a genuine issue requiring a full trial.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment against two defendants on personal guarantees of a corporate loan and a credit card balance.

The defendants argued that bank representatives had assured them their liability was limited to 25% each, contrary to the literal wording of the guarantees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the guarantees, as the defendants' uncontradicted evidence about the bank's representations required credibility assessments.

The court also declined to grant partial summary judgment on the credit card and related fraudulent preference claims due to the risk of inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for $78,600, alleging breach of an oral contract to provide immigration services to a third party.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid immigration services, an unpaid loan, and unpaid rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding his evidence and that of his witnesses lacked credibility and documentary support.

The court also dismissed the defendant Depinderdeep Singh's counterclaims for lack of documentary evidence.

However, the court granted the defendant Monisha Singh's counterclaim for unpaid rent in the amount of $16,400, based on a written lease agreement.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the portion of the action seeking relief regarding the transfer of land in Guyana by the deceased to the defendants.

The defendants argued lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, forum non conveniens, and improper service outside Ontario.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on the in personam exception for equitable claims, as the plaintiffs alleged undue influence.

The court declined to apply forum non conveniens, noting the parties and key connections were in Ontario or New Jersey, not Guyana.

The court also found service outside Ontario was valid under Rule 17.02(i).

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he sexually abused a patient and engaged in professional misconduct towards three nurses, resulting in the revocation of his certificate of registration.

The appellant argued the Committee applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and erred in imposing revocation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were fair, well-reasoned, and entitled to deference.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, noting it was within the reasonable range for sexual misconduct, especially given the appellant's prior history of boundary violations and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out claims for damages for conspiracy made in the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendant argued that the Competition Act precludes conspiracy allegations relating to price maintenance, that directing minds cannot conspire with their corporation, that the principle of merger precludes the claims, and that special damages were not properly pleaded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the law on price maintenance conspiracy is unsettled, the directing minds' alleged conduct was tortious in itself, the principle of merger applies at trial rather than the pleadings stage, and pleading the same special damages for both substantive wrongs and conspiracy is sufficient.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to a 15-month delay.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by imposing page limits, was biased, rendered an unreasonable decision, and violated his s. 15 Charter rights by applying a presumption of prejudice for delayed complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedural directions fair, the delay analysis reasonable, and the Charter claim unfounded as the presumption applies equally to all parties and does not discriminate on analogous grounds.

The appellant architect appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the OAA Discipline Committee.

The Committee found the architect in a conflict of interest under s. 43(1)(f) of the Regulation because he provided millwork drawings for a renovation project while also owning a company that submitted a quote for the work.

The appellant argued the provision only applied to formal tendering processes creating a Contract A/Contract B scenario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee correctly interpreted 'tenders or bids' to include informal competitive bidding processes, consistent with the plain meaning of the words and the public interest purpose of the legislation.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought financial disclosure, interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child and spousal support.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the applicant's requests for disclosure, exclusive possession, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child support, noting her debilitating spinal condition and the ongoing pandemic.

The respondent's motion for the sale of the home was dismissed, and spousal support was deferred as the respondent was ordered to pay the home's maintenance costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring them to pay the costs of an independent medical examination that they failed to attend.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the specific issues of whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to order such costs in the absence of a court order for the examination, and if so, whether such an order should be made in this case.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 3, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiff in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 9, 2020.

The plaintiff did not appear to oppose the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.