Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet

A son sued his mother for conversion of property, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and sought a constructive trust on her condominium and punitive damages.

The plaintiff alleged his mother used funds from his bank account for her own benefit, including to accelerate mortgage payments and purchase a condominium in India.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish conversion, unjust enrichment, or breach of fiduciary duty.

The mother acted in good faith while managing family finances during a period of financial constraint.

The plaintiff left his mother's home with no debt, a graduate degree, a fully-paid car, and $90,000 in savings.

The claim was dismissed.

Diesel Freight Forwarders Ltd. (DFF) sought to enforce minutes of settlement against AYS Holdings Inc. (AYS) after AYS breached payment terms.

AYS admitted the breach but argued against strict enforcement, citing cash flow issues.

The court found the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract, distinguishing it from a Rule 49 offer, and ruled that AYS had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant relief from the agreed-upon consequences of default.

DFF's motion was granted, and AYS was ordered to pay the accelerated amount plus interest and costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a car rental company, alleging systemic misclassification of branch managers and seeking unpaid overtime.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues regarding misclassification could not be resolved on a class-wide basis due to significant variability in the actual job functions performed by managers across different branch locations.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's proposed methodologies for calculating aggregate damages, which relied on computer log-in data and anonymous crowdsourced internet reviews.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated by the defendant due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the Bardal factors, noting the plaintiff's 9.8 years of service, age of 39, and specialized training, to award an 11-month notice period.

The court included pension contributions and a 10% benefits value in the award, but declined to reimburse post-termination training expenses.

The court also found that a 25% salary reduction prior to termination constituted constructive dismissal, meaning the plaintiff's subsequent resignation did not reduce her entitlement.

The parties agreed upon a timetable leading up to a certification motion in a class proceeding.

The court endorsed the agreed-upon schedule, setting dates for the exchange of motion records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the motion returnable for three days in May and June 2022.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought to strike allegations of performance issues, arguing they were irrelevant as the termination was without cause, and allegations of a settlement offer.

The court agreed, finding the performance issues were not tied to the bonus claim as argued by the defendant, and that pleading a settlement offer or a 'reasonable termination arrangement' was irrelevant and improper.

The motion was granted and the offending paragraphs were struck.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' common employer claim, strike certain allegations as scandalous, and sever the plaintiffs' wrongful dismissal claims.

The court found that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts supporting the common employer claim, including integrated operations and common control.

The court also held that allegations of the defendants diverting funds were relevant to the common employer analysis and not scandalous.

Finally, the court refused to sever the claims, finding that a joint trial on the common employer issue would be more efficient and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants' motions were dismissed.

This appeal concerned the application of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, to an oppression remedy claim under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The shareholder (appellant) advanced three claims based on discrete oppressive acts: failure to distribute profits, unauthorized sale/transfer of business, and unauthorized corporate dissolution.

The motion judge summarily dismissed the entire action as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal held that while the first two claims were discoverable more than two years before the action was commenced and thus statute-barred, the claim regarding the unauthorized corporate dissolution was not, as it occurred and was discovered later.

The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the corporate dissolution claim to proceed.

This addendum to reasons for summary judgment addressed the disposition of a $50,000 US gift intended for a property for pilgrims in Poland.

The court found that the funds were misappropriated by an associate of the Plaintiff for personal use (car purchase and condominium down payment).

Despite a clear moral obligation for the Plaintiff or its associate to repay the funds, the court determined that any legal claim for their return was time-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the donor was aware of the misuse in 2014.

The court also found the Plaintiff's allegations of impropriety against the defendant to be false and awarded costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff, Maison Saint-Michel, alleged forgery, theft, and fraud against the defendants, Jacek Morawa and Canadian Institute of Divine Mercy, concerning a deceased donor's condominium gift and its proceeds.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found no credible evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations, noting the plaintiff's selective disclosure in a prior injunction application and its failure to respect the donor's conditional gifts.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs, concluding that the donor's wishes were for the funds to benefit the Polish Catholic community through the defendants, not the plaintiff's general coffers.

The plaintiff, a 51-year-old dental receptionist with 17 years of service, was terminated without cause and brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant argued that the notice period and mitigation efforts were contentious issues requiring a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding credibility or facts.

The court awarded a 12-month notice period, finding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts reasonable overall, though slightly deficient during a 3-month period of temporary employment.

Damages of $22,084 and costs of $24,162.79 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize and enforce a $3 million USD judgment obtained against the defendant in the Superior Court of California.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud based on a newly discovered allegedly forged guarantee, and raised defences of denial of natural justice and public policy.

The court applied the Beals test for recognition of foreign judgments and found the California court properly took jurisdiction.

The court rejected the defendant's fraud defence, finding the allegedly new evidence could have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.

The court granted summary judgment, recognizing and enforcing the California judgment.