James Zibarras

The plaintiff sought access to documents seized pursuant to an Anton Piller Order executed six months prior.

The defendants opposed, arguing the Order did not explicitly permit access and that review was premature.

The court found that the terms of the Order contemplated access by the Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) to identify and inspect records.

Given the passage of time and the discovery stage of the proceeding, the court directed the ISS to inspect the seized material and produce relevant records to the parties, noting the ISS provides protection against disclosure of irrelevant or privileged material.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants for allegedly breaching a Mareva injunction by dissipating assets and failing to disclose bank accounts.

The defendants moved to strike the contempt motion for lack of particulars and improper service.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their notice of motion and to file additional affidavits based on evidence obtained during cross-examinations and from third-party banks.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding they had fair notice of the allegations.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to amend the notice of motion and file additional affidavits, as the new evidence was relevant and there was no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The applicant appealed an arbitration award ordering it to pay damages for breach of a commercial parking management contract.

The applicant argued the arbitrator erred in law by failing to apply proper contractual interpretation principles to a force majeure clause regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and by failing to apply the correct test for equitable set-off.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly focused on the words of the contract and made factual findings that precluded the equitable set-off defence.

The arbitration award was upheld.

The applicant appealed a Proposal Trustee's disallowance of its proof of claim against the respondent's estate.

The claim arose from the respondent's alleged breach of a settlement agreement prohibiting the diversion of salon-only products to unauthorized retailers.

The court drew inferences from circumstantial evidence that the respondent had diverted products to a grey market store in Macau, constituting a material breach of the agreement.

The court upheld the liquidated damages clause as a genuine pre-estimate of damages and enforced the applicant's contractual right to reasonable attorneys' fees, allowing the proof of claim in full.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion, arguing the respondent's claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 rather than the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court held the claim, as pleaded, sought recovery of an interest in land or damages in lieu of that interest and therefore fell under the 10-year limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court rejected new appellate arguments about contractual performance because those issues were not raised on the summary judgment motion.

It confirmed that an appeal from a failed summary judgment motion is not a vehicle for advancing fresh issues.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awards to both responding parties and costs to the appellant on the stay motion.

The plaintiff sought a direction allowing the Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) to commence reviewing evidence seized pursuant to an Anton Piller Order.

The defendants objected, noting the order did not permit review and seeking to schedule a motion to set aside the order.

The court declined the plaintiff's request, finding the purpose of the order—preservation of evidence—had been achieved and noting concerns that the standard clause preventing review was inexplicably omitted from the draft order.

The court also declined to schedule the motion to set aside the order, finding no urgency since the original materials were returned to the defendants and the ISS was not reviewing the copies.

An expedited schedule for documentary production was ordered instead.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated July 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding on the ground that the plaintiffs breached the obligation to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with co-defendant Liam Buck that changed the adversarial landscape of the litigation.

The plaintiffs disclosed the settlement on March 17, 2023, but did not provide full details of the agreement, including that Buck would recant his prior evidence.

The court found that the disclosure was inadequate and that the failure to immediately and forthrightly disclose an agreement changing the adversarial orientation constitutes an abuse of process.

The court granted the stay as required by Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited, despite acknowledging the harshness of the remedy and the absence of prejudice to the moving parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether an order consolidating two actions and dismissing a summary judgment motion was final or interlocutory, and whether to stay the operation of the schedule in the motion judge’s order pending appeal.

The court found the order to be final, as it disposed of the limitation defence under the Real Property Limitations Act, and stayed the order pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions to reconsider its earlier refusal to grant leave to appeal two decisions related to an arbitral award and its enforcement.

Dr. Bokhari argued that the panel may have been unaware that a key precedent (Aroma) was under reserve at the time of the refusal.

The court held that the relevant rules did not permit reconsideration based on subsequent jurisprudence, only on new facts, and that the interests of justice did not favour reconsideration.

The motions were dismissed.

The appellant, Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA), appealed a trial judgment finding it breached a Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA) with the respondent, ID Inc., regarding the conversion of a billboard to a digital sign.

The trial judge had awarded ID Inc. damages for lost profits, finding the SMA had not expired and that TWPA had waived or was estopped from relying on the expiry provision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in her contractual interpretation by injecting a fault concept into the plain language of the SMA, which clearly stated the agreement would terminate if a permit was not obtained within 360 days.

The Court also found no evidence to support waiver or estoppel.

ID Inc.'s cross-appeal regarding an alleged separate oral agreement was dismissed, as the trial judge correctly applied the objective test for contract formation.

The action against TWPA was dismissed.

ID Inc. appealed the dismissal of its claim against StrategyCorp, which arose from a dispute over the transformation of a billboard to a digital sign and a related consulting agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that StrategyCorp did not intentionally interfere with ID Inc.'s economic relations, the consulting agreement was conditional on a separate agreement that never materialized, StrategyCorp had repudiated the agreement which ID Inc. accepted by silence, and StrategyCorp did not breach its duty of good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicants sought the appointment of a receiver over several respondent companies, including those jointly owned and those solely controlled by one of the individual respondents, due to alleged misappropriation of funds, mortgage defaults, and corporate oppression.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory bases for appointing a receiver (Courts of Justice Act, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Business Corporations Act) were not met.

The court determined there was no underlying action for interlocutory relief, no irreparable harm shown given the sufficient value of the secured property, and the request for relief against solely-owned companies was brought too late.

The defendants Valiollah Onsori-Saisan and Skymark Capital Corporation brought a motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, originally obtained ex parte by the plaintiff Maxol Wealth Investments Inc., which arose from a syndicated mortgage fraud.

The moving parties argued the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure, the injunction was overly broad in capturing a non-party business account (Pomanar Dessert Inc.), and the plaintiff's undertaking for damages was insufficient.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the injunction, finding that the moving parties' own evidence strengthened their connection to the fraudulent scheme.

However, the court granted, on consent, a further release of funds from the Pomanar account for the moving parties' legal defence, subject to the plaintiff's costs being paid first.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis.

ID Inc. brought a motion to quash part of an appeal by the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA), arguing the appeal was out of time because the judgment for damages was "pronounced" earlier than the final judgment date.

The TWPA opposed and brought a cross-motion for an extension of time if necessary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed ID Inc.'s motion, finding that there was only a single judgment, not two, and therefore the appeal was not out of time.

The TWPA's cross-motion was dismissed as moot.

The appellant, Money Gate Corporation, appealed the dismissal of its motion seeking distribution of proceeds from a property sale, asserting an unregistered assignment of a second mortgage.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the source of funds for the alleged assignment, concluding no enforceable assignment was acquired.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision to dismiss the motion or in the discretionary costs order, noting the appellant's failure to file a cost outline.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., and the defendants, Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp., sought costs following a trial.

ID Inc. was awarded damages against TWPA and sought partial indemnity costs for the trial and substantial indemnity costs for an interest motion.

StrategyCorp., whose claim was dismissed, sought full indemnity costs against ID Inc. The court awarded ID Inc. partial indemnity costs of $641,891.66 against TWPA, with reductions for certain disbursements and a 15% reduction for divided success on issues.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs for the interest motion, awarding partial indemnity instead, with further reductions for excessive time and unnecessary attendance.

StrategyCorp. was awarded partial indemnity costs of $665,354.31 against ID Inc., with reductions for time spent on an unscheduled summary judgment motion and a separate OIC complaint.

The court declined to award costs against ID Inc.'s principal personally or to direct TWPA's payment to ID Inc. to first satisfy StrategyCorp.'s costs.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sought pre- and post-judgment interest at a contractual rate of 26.8% per annum following a successful breach of contract claim against Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA).

The court had previously awarded damages for lost profits and maintenance.

The key issues were whether ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate without amending its pleading, and if an amendment was necessary, whether leave should be granted.

The court found that ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate under common law, as the parties had agreed to and contemplated this rate in their Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA), and the TWPA was not prejudiced despite the delay in formally pleading it.

The court awarded ID Inc. pre- and post-judgment interest at 26.8% on the total damages.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporation, to post security for costs.

The plaintiff claimed impecuniosity, arguing it had no assets or income.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient disclosure regarding its financial viability and its shareholders' ability to borrow, thus failing to establish impecuniosity.

The court also assessed the merits of the plaintiff's negligence claim, finding it did not have a good chance of success, and considered the defendant's delay in bringing the motion.

Applying a holistic approach, the court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to post $25,000 in security for costs on a partial indemnity scale within 90 days.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sued the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp for breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and conspiracy regarding a project to convert a static billboard at the Ontario Food Terminal to a digital sign.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement for a share of advertising revenue and a written Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA).

The court found no oral agreement existed but held that the TWPA breached the SMA and its duty of good faith by waiving a 360-day permit condition and then secretly contracting with a competitor.

Claims against StrategyCorp for interference, conspiracy, and breach of confidence were dismissed.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost profits on the construction and maintenance of the sign.