Jeffrey B. Rosekat

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action for negligent repair and misrepresentation regarding an aircraft, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Alberta was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs also moved to add a related federal corporation operating in Ontario as a defendant, which was granted on consent.

Applying the Van Breda test, the court found that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the defendants carrying on business in Ontario, the tort being committed in Ontario, and contracts being made in Ontario.

The court further held that the defendants failed to establish that Alberta was a clearly more appropriate forum, as most witnesses and the aircraft were located in Ontario.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order that continued existing banking and management arrangements for joint venture properties, rather than ordering a court-appointed sales officer to distribute sales proceeds directly to the ultimate owners.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's highly discretionary decision and concluding the proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general importance.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an auction sale process for a high-value unfinished residential property after several years of unsuccessful marketing through traditional listings.

A second mortgagee opposed the proposed reserve price, arguing it was too low and risked insufficient proceeds to reduce the debt under the second mortgage.

The court reviewed confidential appraisal evidence and the property’s extended failed marketing history.

It concluded that the receiver’s valuation and proposed reserve price were more realistic than the objecting mortgagee’s optimistic assumptions.

The court approved the auction process, the receiver’s activities and fees, and granted a sealing order to protect commercially sensitive valuation and auction information.

The applicants moved for an order regarding post-closing issues following a court-approved sale of properties.

The respondents sought payout on two mortgages, including compensation for future interest loss, as the mortgages were vested off title prior to maturity.

The applicants objected, arguing the mortgages were self-dealing and should not include an unbargained pre-payment penalty.

The court found that the mortgages did not contain a pre-payment privilege and that the respondents did not breach any fiduciary duty in the refinancing.

The court ruled in favour of the respondents, ordering that they be compensated for future interest loss.

The applicants moved for an order regarding post-closing issues following a court-approved sale of properties.

The respondents sought a payout on two mortgages that included a prepayment penalty for future interest loss.

The applicants argued the mortgages were self-dealing and should not include a prepayment penalty, as the original CMHC mortgages did not.

The court found that the mortgages did not contain a prepayment privilege and that the respondents were entitled to compensation for the loss resulting from the early vesting off title of the mortgages.

The court ruled in favour of the respondents.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged breach of a settlement agreement, civil conspiracy, and interference with economic relations arising from the defendants' implementation of new real estate rules that effectively prohibited the plaintiffs' flat-fee brokerage model.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded all necessary elements for breach of contract, predominant purpose conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, and interference with economic relations.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the claims would fail, and that the individual defendants could be held personally liable despite being officers or directors of the corporate defendants, as the pleadings alleged they acted maliciously, outside their authority, and for their own personal business interests.

The appellant, a real estate broker, created a website that provided the public with direct access to the Toronto Real Estate Board's (TREB) MLS Database.

TREB suspended the appellant's access without notice, arguing he breached the Authorized User Agreement (AUA).

The trial judge found the appellant breached the AUA by not confining his use of the database to exclusive and internal use, and that TREB was justified in suspending access without notice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the AUA and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike his Amended Statement of Claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that permitting the claim to proceed would be an abuse of process by allowing relitigation of issues already determined by courts of competent jurisdiction.

The Court also noted that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they had no right to dispute a bankruptcy petition because they were not deemed directors under s. 115(4) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if s. 115(4) conferred powers as well as responsibilities, the appellants did not manage or supervise the affairs of the corporation, which had already been wound up.

The appellants' possession of corporate records and intention to commence a derivative action did not amount to managing the corporation.