J. Cook

The defendant, Valeria Dye, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action by the plaintiffs, Augustine D’Souza and Cedric D’Souza.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, trust, and negligence, alleging that $86,000 was transferred to Dye's trust account and improperly released.

The court found that the facts were hazy and in dispute, raising genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing a cautious approach when dealing with self-represented litigants and noting that informal evidence could be sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

The parties sought the court's assistance to settle the form and content of an order stemming from previous decisions (2021 ONSC 6850 and 2022 ONSC 411).

The court clarified the operative parts of the order, directing the appointment of an appraiser for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' participation in the appraisal, and the plaintiffs' payment of $2,500.00 in costs to Aviva Insurance Company.

The court emphasized its role in ensuring the formal order accurately reflects the original decision, not re-litigating issues.

Following a successful motion by the defendant insurer to appoint an appraiser under the Insurance Act, the parties could not agree on costs.

The insurer sought $4,916.25 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge or fixed at $900.

The court declined to reserve costs and fixed the costs payable to the insurer at $2,500, noting the motion was simple and efficiently argued.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for an order appointing an appraiser pursuant to section 128(5) of the Insurance Act and compelling the plaintiff insureds to participate in the appraisal pursuant to Statutory Condition 11 of the policy.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the appraisal process would not be cost-effective and would not resolve the broader issues in the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the wording of Statutory Condition 11 is mandatory and requires an appraisal whenever there is a disagreement as to the value of the property insured or the amount of the loss, regardless of the extent of the disagreement or the existence of other issues.

This action arose from a real estate transaction oversight where the Mundenchiras inadvertently received title to both halves of a subdivided property instead of just the one they purchased.

The Mundenchiras, as plaintiffs by cross-claim, sued their lawyer, Mr. Suvendu Goswami, for negligence and sought substantial damages for business losses, property value reduction, carrying costs, and mental distress.

The court found that Mr. Goswami breached his duty of care by failing to ensure good marketable title.

However, most of the Mundenchiras' damage claims were dismissed as not reasonably foreseeable or factually unproven, particularly those related to speculative secondary transactions.

The court only awarded a refund of a $5,000 retainer paid to Mr. Goswami to rectify the title error.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful interim injunction motion brought by 2184472 Ontario Inc. (Escrow) against 1637601 Ontario Limited (the Landlord) and 147 Dunlop Street East Inc. (147).

The Landlord sought substantial indemnity costs, and 147 sought partial indemnity costs.

Escrow argued against paying costs, citing 147's recanting of an undertaking that necessitated an emergency hearing.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs, as there was no evidence of bad faith.

It also found the hours claimed by both respondents to be excessive, partly due to the rushed preparation caused by 147's conduct.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $11,500 to the Landlord and $5,950 to 147, both amounts all-inclusive.

The applicant, operating a restolounge, sought an interim injunction to restrain its landlord from leasing space in the same building to a proposed Mediterranean restaurant, relying on an exclusionary clause in its lease.

The applicant argued the new restaurant would operate a similar business and serve alcohol, causing a loss of business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but dismissed the application because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages.