Jasmine T. Akbarali

The appellants appealed a Master's decision allowing the respondents' action for copyright infringement to proceed following a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The appellants argued the Master erred in law by only considering prejudice that accrued during the period of delay for which the respondents were at fault, and in finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct test, properly accepted ongoing settlement discussions as a reasonable explanation for much of the delay, and correctly limited the prejudice analysis to the period of blameworthy delay.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike portions of the defendant's defence and the entirety of the counterclaim.

The parties resolved the motion by consent, leaving only the issue of costs.

The defendant argued that a consent order should not attract costs and that the motion was unnecessary.

The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff incurred costs to analyze the poorly constructed pleadings and identify what should be struck, work that the defendant's counsel should have done.

However, the court found the plaintiff's claimed costs of nearly $9,000 to be excessive.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a finding of oppression, the court determined the appropriate process and parameters for valuing the respondent's shares in a real estate development corporation to effect a buyout by the applicant.

The court declined to appoint separate valuators, instead directing a reference to a master to determine the share price.

The court set the valuation date as the date of the oppression decision, rather than an earlier date proposed by the applicant, and provided guidance on specific adjustments including equalization of costs and the treatment of the property's lapsed site plan approval.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs against a commercial tenant and landlord following a consent compliance order regarding severe noise issues from a restaurant.

The court held that the consent order did not preclude the applicant from seeking its additional actual costs under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.

Finding that the landlord and tenant breached the declaration and rules, the court awarded the applicant $87,810.09 in costs, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that the appellant was not financially eligible for ODSP income support due to her receipt of long-term disability insurance benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision involved a question of mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the ODSPA, and that the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable.

The plaintiff and defendant, siblings, were involved in a dispute over the ownership and management of a family partnership.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's claim was for breach of contract and statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking the appointment of a receiver and manager, further production, and an accounting.

The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff's claim was grounded in breach of fiduciary duty, to which no limitation period applied under the transition provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no clear evidence of irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy of appointing a receiver, and concluding the requests for production and an accounting lacked a proper jurisdictional basis.

The plaintiff, a 40-year-old product manager with 19 months of service, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and awarded nine months' notice plus 10% for benefits, totaling $78,333.40.

The notice period was at the high end of the range due to an onerous non-competition clause and the employer's failure to provide a reference letter.

The court also awarded $16,000 in costs, applying substantial indemnity consequences for beating a Rule 49 offer.

The registrar referred the plaintiff's statement of claim to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) to determine if it was frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that, except for a negligence claim against the police services board related to the plaintiff's detention, the claim appeared frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01, arguing it disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff sought damages for privacy torts but failed to plead any material facts.

The court found the claim was improperly pleaded but not obviously frivolous or an abuse of process.

The court stayed the action under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act until the plaintiff files a fresh as amended statement of claim.

Georgian Properties Corporation (GPC) brought a motion to strike the factum of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2051 (TSCC) in its entirety or in part, arguing that it raised issues outside the scope of the pleadings, contrary to a prior settlement agreement and court decisions.

The court found that the majority of TSCC's factum was proper, as many arguments related to the adequacy of disclosure or the exorbitant nature of mortgages, which were within the existing pleadings.

However, specific paragraphs alleging new claims, such as breach of agreements of purchase and sale or broader breaches of fiduciary duty, were struck.

The court denied GPC's request for the summary judgment motion to proceed before a different judge, citing efficiency and the judge's ability to remain impartial.

GPC's motion was deemed largely unnecessary, and GPC was ordered to pay TSCC's partial indemnity costs of $9,134.92.

The plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim, Lorne Rose Architect Inc., brought a motion for summary dismissal of the defendants'/plaintiffs' by counterclaim's counterclaim.

The counterclaim alleged breach of contract and negligence regarding architectural services, specifically failure to deliver timely drawings and inadequate coordination with engineers.

The court declined to grant summary judgment, citing the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact with the main action, where the same issues were raised in defence.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The Estate of Psarros brought an action against Lorraine Cook, the deceased's wife, concerning the disposition of their matrimonial home and the validity of a marriage contract.

Prior to their marriage, Psarros and Cook purchased a house as tenants in common.

Their marriage contract mistakenly stated they owned the house as joint tenants and included a release of Cook's claims under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

After Psarros died intestate, the Estate sought to sell its half-interest in the property to Cook, who initially agreed but later challenged the property's ownership structure and the validity of her SLRA release due to the contract's mistake.

The court found that the mistake in the marriage contract did not constitute an appropriate basis to set aside Cook's SLRA release under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, as she had not been under the impression she owned the entire house and the error did not extend to the SLRA release.

The court also determined that while the Estate was entitled to occupation rent, it was wholly offset by Cook's payment of the Estate's share of expenses.

The action was allowed, binding Cook to purchase the Estate's interest in the property based on the marriage contract's terms.

Following a finding of liability for conversion and unjust enrichment, one of the respondents retained new counsel and indicated an intention to move to re-open the application under Rule 59.06.

The court requested written submissions on its jurisdiction to hear the intended motion.

The court held that because no formal order had yet been taken out, it was not functus officio and retained broad jurisdiction to change its judgment.

The court directed the respondent to schedule the motion to re-open before the same judge.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) sought to amend its statement of claim in a long-running insurance indemnity action against Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company (Allianz).

Allianz opposed the amendments, arguing they introduced new causes of action, were time-barred, lacked particulars, and caused prejudice due to inordinate delay and loss of evidence.

The court found that amendments related to causation theories advanced by Allianz's experts were not new causes of action, but the claim based on assignment of rights from MDS Nordion and Comstock was a new cause of action and time-barred.

The court granted leave to amend certain paragraphs, denied others, and required AECL to provide better particulars for the causation amendments to limit their scope to the theories advanced by Allianz's experts.

This endorsement addresses the calculation of damages for conversion and unjust enrichment, following a prior finding of liability against the respondents.

Specifically, it determines whether damages for conversion of three vehicles should be increased to include taxes.

The court ruled that damages owed by Atlantic Towing Inc. and Chris’s Towing Inc. should be increased by 13% to account for HST or RST, as a tax liability flows from the deemed forced sale due to conversion.

The total amount owed by these two respondents is $120,440.82.

The issue of Earl Lewis's liability for taxes and a proposed motion to reopen the decision were deferred for future consideration.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an action where the plaintiff, Saramia Crescent General Partner Ltd., was awarded $1,277,000 in damages for breach of lease.

The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale up to November 8, 2016, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter, having beaten two offers to settle.

The defendants' arguments that the costs were excessive, that the issues were novel justifying a reduction, or that mediation costs should be excluded were largely rejected.

A minor reduction was made for communications costs.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the defendants for failing to disclose their own costs.

The court issued an endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on a mortgage guarantee.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion and the plaintiff's subsequent request for a mini-trial or expedited trial.

The court reserved the costs of the summary judgment motion to the trial judge, finding it more just given that the claims and defences remained live and the work done would reduce trial costs.

The plaintiff's request for a mini-trial was denied, as it would not allow for proper development of defences due to prior evidentiary deficiencies and lack of discovery.

The court reiterated the need for a case conference to address the action's progress, particularly in light of a key individual's failing health, and to consider an expedited trial.

This case involved two applications concerning the renewal of a twenty-year ground lease between a landlord, North Elgin Centre Inc., and its tenant, McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited.

McDonald's had given notice to renew but failed to either revoke its intention or elect arbitration within the stipulated nine-month period when rent negotiations stalled.

The landlord sought a declaration that the lease was terminated due to McDonald's non-compliance with the renewal provision.

McDonald's sought a declaration that the lease was renewed and an order for arbitration.

The court found that McDonald's did not strictly comply with the renewal provision.

While the landlord's conduct initially constituted a waiver of strict compliance, this waiver was effectively revoked by clear communication.

McDonald's subsequently failed to elect arbitration within a reasonable time and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the landlord's application, declaring the lease terminated, and dismissed McDonald's application.

A 90-day stay of judgment was granted.

The plaintiff law firm, Srebrolow Lebowitz Spadafora PC (SLS), brought a motion for summary judgment against its former associate, Paul Wilkins, and his new firm, PW Lawyers Professional Corporation, regarding unpaid fees from client files transferred upon Wilkins' departure.

The dispute centered on whether certain referral fees paid by Wilkins to a third-party lawyer and a paralegal (who was an SLS employee at the time of referral) could reduce the net fees owed to SLS under their separation agreement.

The court found that the referral fee paid to the third-party lawyer was reasonable, but the fee paid to the paralegal was compensation, not a true referral fee, and thus not deductible.

The court also found PW Lawyers Professional Corporation liable by way of constructive trust for the funds owed to SLS.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an action brought by CIT Financial Ltd. against several defendants, which was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale, including legal and expert fees.

The court considered the complexity, importance, and reasonable expectations of the parties.

While the court found the defendants were diligent in bringing their summary judgment motion after discoveries, it significantly reduced the claimed expert fees for Zeifmans (to one-third) and Duff & Phelps (to 50%).

This reduction was due to the defendants' experts' unreasonable refusal to cooperate with the plaintiff's expert, leading to unnecessary duplication of work in calculations.

Ultimately, CIT Financial Ltd. was ordered to pay the defendants legal fees totaling $1,706,147.92 and reduced disbursements (including expert fees) totaling $550,182.34.