Ivan S. Bloom

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order finding it had given a bad faith notice of termination and imposing a $10,000 administrative fine.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the landlord and tenants settled their dispute and agreed to set aside the Board's order.

The Board sought standing to participate in the appeal to defend the administrative fine.

The Divisional Court held that the Board could make submissions regarding the nature and purpose of administrative fines, balancing the need for fully-informed adjudication against maintaining tribunal impartiality.

On the merits, the court upheld the $10,000 fine, finding it served a public protection purpose to deter future violations and was not based on an error of law.

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography, specifically text messages, contrary to sections 163.1(2) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person depicted in the messages was under 18 years old.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including an agreed statement of facts and the text messages exchanged between the accused and an undercover officer.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Villaroman and R. v. Starr regarding circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof.

Ultimately, the court found that the only reasonable inference was that the numbers "13" and "14" in the messages referred to age, and convicted the accused on both counts.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that awarded the respondent tenant a rent abatement for harassment, failure to provide a parking spot, improper notice of entry, and failure to provide an exclusive mailbox.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the harassment, parking, and notice of entry issues, finding they were questions of fact not subject to appeal under the Residential Tenancies Act.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the mailbox, finding no statutory basis to imply an obligation on the landlord to provide one, and reduced the rent abatement by $200.

The applicant, Parkland Corporation, sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the respondent gas station operator from selling fuel purchased from third parties, in breach of their consignment and branding agreement.

The court applied the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of contractual breach.

The court also found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm to its business model and market share, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The Applicants sought damages and forfeiture of a deposit arising from a failed residential property purchase and sale agreement.

The Respondents argued they were entitled to not close due to the Applicants' innocent material misrepresentation regarding municipal taxes and alleged bad faith.

The court found that an "entire agreement" clause in the contract precluded reliance on the alleged misrepresentation, and consequently, the bad faith argument failed.

The Applicants were awarded damages of $425,319.69 and the $100,000 deposit was forfeited.

This decision addresses three motions: the defendants' motion to dismiss the action for delay and discharge a certificate of pending litigation, the plaintiff's cross-motion to compel discovery and strike the defense, and the defendants' motion for security for costs.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, finding that the plaintiff's delay was not inordinate or inexcusable, particularly given the defendants' own defaults in discovery obligations.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering the defendants to provide an affidavit of documents and attend examinations for discovery within a set timetable.

The motion for security for costs was also dismissed, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations of fraudulent asset stripping.

The defendants, Rosemary Palmieri, De Zen Realty Company Ltd., Sam Jonathan Lee, and Master’s Roofing and Supplies Inc., brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss an action for damages caused by a fire in a commercial storage unit leased by the plaintiff.

The action alleged negligence and breach of contract.

The court found that the commercial lease's insurance clauses, specifically Articles 10.01 and 10.02, operated as an assumption of risk by the tenant (plaintiff) and included a waiver of subrogation against the landlord and its agents.

The court also found that an exclusion clause (Article 6.12) in the lease was valid and applicable.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding the landlord's duty to render premises insurable, waiver by the landlord, and unconscionability were rejected due to lack of pleading, evidentiary support, or legal merit.

The court concluded that the matter was appropriate for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Powerone Solutions Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of contract against the defendant, Trans-Tec Inc. The contract involved the sale of fixed assets and inventory, with a 'time is of the essence' clause.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to provide access to the assets until July 31, 2018, due to a landlord lockout, and raised defenses of contract ambiguity, frustration, and set-off.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the interpretation of the contract, particularly concerning access to assets and the application of the parol evidence rule.

The court also determined that the issue of estoppel by convention and the effect of document destruction required a trial.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, with costs to be addressed separately.

This endorsement addresses a costs ruling following successful summary judgment motions.

The defendants, as moving parties for costs, sought $70,000 in partial indemnity costs in each of two proceedings.

The plaintiffs, as responding parties, argued against the award, citing lack of notice regarding certain claims and the potential impediment to their ongoing litigation against other defendants.

The court granted the defendants the full requested costs, totaling $140,000, finding that the defendants were entirely successful, their offer to settle was generous, the allegations against them were serious, and the amount sought was reasonable.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments against the costs award.

This case is an appeal under s. 25 of the Building Code Act, 1992, concerning five compliance orders issued by the chief building official.

The appellant challenged two of the orders, arguing that the official erred in finding a "dwelling" on the premises.

The court affirmed all orders, holding that the official was only required to determine if the structures were "buildings" under the Act, not necessarily "dwellings" and found no reversible error.

The decision also clarified the applicable standard of review for statutory appeals and the court's limited jurisdiction regarding tort claims.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault.

The sentencing judge found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender administered THC to the victim to render her compliant.

After weighing the aggravating factors, including the presence of the victim's young child, against the offender's positive rehabilitation prospects, the court rejected a conditional sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 18 months' incarceration along with ancillary orders.

The moving parties, including the Crown and two police officers, sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions for negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental harm, and civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a police investigation into alleged sexual assaults by two minor plaintiffs, which resulted in criminal charges that were later stayed after the minors completed counselling.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in favour of the plaintiffs, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges, and there was no evidence supporting the other tort claims.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving parties were dismissed.

The parties brought cross-motions concerning discovery issues, including compelling answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals, access to accounting software, and setting a timetable for subsequent steps.

The court ordered various questions to be answered and documents produced, emphasizing relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Access to the defendant's accounting software was granted to the plaintiff.

The court also set a timetable for further discovery and expert reports, reserving costs to the trial judge due to divided success.

Following a trial on property and spousal support where the applicant was substantially successful, the applicant sought costs of $848,408.89.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to make proper disclosure, which triggered full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $475,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The Applicant sought monetary damages for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture, an order for no equalization payment, and a lump sum spousal support payment.

The Respondent opposed these claims.

The court found that the Applicant had established unjust enrichment within a joint family venture due to her contributions to the Respondent's business (GS Medical) and household, and her corresponding deprivation (giving up her career, underpaid/unpaid labor).

The court also found the Applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, noting the luxurious lifestyle during cohabitation and the Applicant's economic disadvantage.

Due to the Respondent's lack of financial disclosure, adverse inferences were drawn regarding the value of his business.

The court awarded the Applicant $3,000,000 for unjust enrichment and $365,624.00 net of tax for lump sum spousal support, plus prejudgment interest.

The divorce application was granted.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel appealed a lower court order that required it to hire a third-party professional supervision service for supervised home visits.

The Society argued that this requirement contravened s. 94(6)(c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), which prohibits compelling the Society to provide financial assistance or purchase goods/services for supervision orders.

Applying a correctness standard of review, the court found that the lower court's order did indeed contravene s. 94(6)(c) by obligating the Society to purchase services.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned provision of the order was set aside.

Following a trial regarding four real estate transactions where the plaintiffs achieved substantial success, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought $579,834.02 on a full indemnity basis, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct and misrepresentations, while the defendants argued for a lower amount.

Applying principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $400,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiffs and defendants engaged in a series of real estate transactions involving four properties, operating largely on oral agreements.

Disputes arose regarding the beneficial ownership of the properties and claims for renovation work performed by the defendants.

The court applied principles of oral contract formation and resulting trust to determine the parties' respective interests based on their financial contributions.

The court found largely in favour of the plaintiffs, granting them sole ownership of two properties, a majority interest in a third, and a half interest in the fourth, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for defective renovation work.

The defendant owner of a motor vehicle moved for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence action arising from a collision in a bar parking lot.

The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's vehicle, which had been left idling by the defendant's cousin and was allegedly stolen by an unknown thief.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the driver's identity, concluding the driver was a thief.

Consequently, the court held the owner was not liable under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act as the vehicle was taken without consent, nor at common law as no duty of care was owed.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

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.