James Omri Katz

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by the defendant for a $300,000 US loan to a corporation.

The defendant raised the defence of economic duress, arguing he was pressured into signing the guarantee to save the business.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial because the pressure was legitimate commercial pressure and the defendant had subsequently affirmed the guarantee.

The court also awarded pre and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, despite the guarantee only covering the principal amount.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant for breach of commercial leases.

The defendant argued that the leases were signed on behalf of her corporation and raised defenses of set-off and promissory estoppel.

The court found that the defendant signed the leases in her personal capacity, as there was no evidence to support corporate adoption or proper corporate naming on the contracts as required by the Canada Business Act.

The court also rejected the defenses of set-off and promissory estoppel, finding that the plaintiff had mitigated damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff for unpaid rent and real estate commissions.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to oppose the confirmation of an assessment officer's report and to set it aside.

They had failed to attend the assessment hearing, claiming they misunderstood the purpose of a prior adjournment.

The court found their excuse weak but noted they acted promptly upon learning of the assessment.

Because there was a genuine issue regarding whether the moving parties had actually retained the respondent law firm prior to signing a written retainer, the court set aside the unopposed certificate of assessment and remitted the matter back to the Assessment Officer.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs due to their default.

The applicant was successful in an application for the partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the respondent.

The court previously ordered the sale and directed a reference to the Master.

In this endorsement, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the applicant.

The applicant sought $12,459.98 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the amount claimed for drafting the notice of application and supporting affidavit due to overlap between counsel and a student-at-law.

Costs were fixed at $11,454.28, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid from the respondent's share of the net proceeds of sale.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict finding them liable for internet defamation, awarding $42,000 in damages, and a trial judge's orders granting a permanent injunction and substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding defamatory meanings or malice.

The Court upheld the permanent injunction, noting the appellants' continued publication of the defamatory statements and refusal to remove them.

The jury's awards for aggravated and punitive damages were also upheld as reasonable.

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian for the deceased's two children, brought an application to remove the respondent as the estate trustee.

The respondent, who was the deceased's former common-law partner, had continued to occupy the deceased's home, used estate assets, and improperly claimed pension survivor benefits despite having separated from the deceased prior to her death.

The court found that the totality of the respondent's actions, including his hostility toward the beneficiaries and potential conflicts of interest regarding estate debts, raised real concerns about his ability to carry out his fiduciary duties.

The application was granted, the respondent was removed, and the alternate trustees named in the will were appointed.

Following a jury verdict in a defamation action, the court addressed the final terms of the judgment and injunction.

The court confirmed that the draft judgment should include a chart specifying the total amount owing by each defendant.

It also approved an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing statements and innuendos found by the jury to be defamatory.

The court declined to alter the jury’s damages awards by reducing the amounts payable by certain defendants based on damages assessed against others.

The jury’s separate findings on damages and costs were left intact.

Following a jury verdict in an internet defamation action, the court determined costs and related remedies.

The jury had found the defendants liable for numerous defamatory postings on an online political forum and awarded aggravated and punitive damages.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on Rule 49 offers to settle and the defendants’ malicious conduct.

The court held that the plaintiff had been entirely successful and that the defendants’ conduct and refusal to accept reasonable settlement offers justified substantial indemnity costs.

Costs of $85,000 were awarded and apportioned among several defendants, and a permanent injunction was granted restraining republication of the defamatory statements.

A condominium unit owner applied for a declaration that a certificate of lien registered by the condominium corporation against her unit was invalid.

The corporation had added legal costs incurred for obtaining advice in defending Small Claims Court actions commenced by the owner to the owner's common expenses and registered a lien under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court interpreted the condominium declaration strictly and held that the indemnity clause permitted recovery only where the corporation took legal action against an owner and incurred costs in enforcing compliance.

Because the owner had commenced the actions and no costs award had been granted to the corporation, the declaration did not authorize recovery of the legal advice costs as common expenses.

The lien was therefore invalid and ordered discharged.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the administrators of a message board and several anonymous John Doe defendants.

The plaintiff successfully moved for an order requiring the administrators to disclose the e-mail and IP addresses of the anonymous defendants.

The administrators appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that where a disclosure order engages Charter values such as freedom of expression and privacy, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of defamation and the court must balance the public interest in disclosure against these Charter rights.