Jeffrey E. Feiner

The plaintiff mortgage brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and its CEO for unpaid brokerage fees.

The CEO had fraudulently misrepresented to the plaintiff that the real estate agents on the sale of the property had agreed to reduce their commission by 50%, inducing the plaintiff to discharge its mortgage and defer its fees.

The court found the CEO personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and ordered both defendants to pay the full $350,000 fee plus substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for conspiracy to injure and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff, former CEO of a company in receivership, alleged the defendants conspired to breach contracts to harm him personally.

The court struck the conspiracy claim because it failed to explain how the corporate defendant would agree to act against its own interests.

The court also struck the intentional interference claim because a prior release agreement meant the third-party company had no actionable civil wrong against the defendants.

Both claims were struck with leave to amend.

The applicant property owner sought a declaration that a 'right of first refusal to purchase' granted to the respondent upon the sale of the property was void due to frustration.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal of an adjacent landowner from a planned land assembly rendered the development project impossible.

The court determined that the right was an option to purchase creating an interest in land, not a mere right of first refusal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the withdrawal of the adjacent landowner was a foreseen event provided for in the parties' agreements and did not render the provision of the commercial space impossible.

The court also held that the right did not violate the rule against perpetuities.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the defendant cardiologist following the sudden death of a 36-year-old man who collapsed after completing a half-marathon.

The deceased had severe aortic stenosis.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed to properly advise the deceased against strenuous exercise.

The court ruled that hearsay statements by the deceased regarding the doctor's advice were inadmissible for lack of threshold reliability.

The court accepted the defendant's evidence that he had advised the deceased against distance running and warned him of the risk of sudden death.

The court found the defendant met the standard of care and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff and defendants were neighbours involved in a property dispute over a shared walkway, a privacy screen, and a hedge located near their property line.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of these features through adverse possession, arguing her predecessors in title had exclusively possessed the area.

The court dismissed the adverse possession claim, finding the predecessors' use was cooperative and permissive, not adverse.

However, the court awarded the plaintiff $7,700 in special, general, and punitive damages for the defendants' highhanded and oppressive conduct in trespassing to remove a shared wooden fence and installing a gate that opened onto the plaintiff's property.