Jeffrey Radnoff

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims based on the expiry of limitation periods and the alleged non-existence of an oral trust agreement.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting fraudulent concealment and the existence of an oral, resulting, or constructive trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties, the nature of the alleged trust, and the application of limitation periods.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment would not achieve a faster or cheaper resolution and risked inconsistent findings due to the intertwined factual and credibility disputes.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $292,000 in damages for oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The trial judge found the appellant engaged in oppressive conduct by failing to keep proper financial records, using company funds for personal expenses, and misappropriating funds through an undisclosed arrangement with another company.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of oppression and the damages awarded for loss of profits and personal expenses.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the $182,000 award for loss of business value, finding it was an error in principle because the parties had agreed to wind up the business and distribute net assets, making book value or fair market value irrelevant.

The defendants brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel, Matthew Valitutti and Jeffrey Radnoff, alleging a conflict of interest based on a prior lawyer-client relationship between Mr. Valitutti and the defendant Giuseppe Prizzi.

Mr. Prizzi claimed Mr. Valitutti had provided ongoing legal advice to Mr. Prizzi on business matters, including those related to the plaintiff, in exchange for landscaping services.

Mr. Valitutti denied any such relationship or providing legal advice.

The court, applying the MacDonald Estate v. Martin test, found that the defendants failed to discharge their onus to prove a prior lawyer-client relationship, citing a lack of objective corroborating evidence for Mr. Prizzi's assertions which were forcefully denied by Mr. Valitutti.

The motion to disqualify counsel was dismissed.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that the lease agreement with the respondent tenant was a commercial lease subject to the Commercial Tenancies Act, despite being executed on a standard residential lease form.

The court applied the predominant purpose test, finding that the tenant used the property primarily for its telecommunications construction business, maintained heavy equipment on site, and used the house as a corporate office.

The court held that the lease was commercial in nature and granted the declaratory relief.

A shareholder oppression trial arising from the breakdown of an informal business relationship involving a used car dealership and related real estate ventures.

The court held there was no binding settlement agreement for the wind-up of the dealership because the relied-on email was at most an agreement to agree and lacked acceptance on essential terms.

The court found oppressive conduct where the controlling parties failed to maintain adequate financial records, charged personal expenses to the corporation, and used a related sole proprietorship as an unjustified intermediary that diverted profits from the corporation.

Damages of $292,000 were awarded for oppression, and the remaining certificate of pending litigation was found to have been improperly registered, with any resulting damages to be determined on reference if necessary.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) over several properties allegedly purchased with profits from a landscaping business he co-founded with the individual defendant.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which the court denied due to their failure to advance the proceeding or file evidence.

The court found the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding an interest in land based on claims of partnership breach, oppression, and constructive trust.

Applying the Dhunna criteria, the court concluded the equities favoured granting the CPL to protect the plaintiff's interests.

The plaintiff sought damages for unjust enrichment, claiming he never received income tax refund cheques for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years.

The Canada Revenue Agency moved for summary judgment.

The Federal Court granted the motion, holding that the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff ought to have known of the loss by July 2015 when his agent received a statement of account.

The Court further held there was no genuine issue for trial on the merits, as the Agency's evidence established the cheques were issued, mailed, and negotiated, meaning the Crown was not enriched.

The applicant law firm brought a motion seeking directions to assess all legal accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, including those rendered to predecessor counsel between 2012 and 2018.

The respondent argued that only its final account rendered to the applicant was subject to assessment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Solicitors Act, the applicant lacked standing to assess the prior accounts as it was neither a client, a party chargeable, nor a party who had paid those accounts.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for possession of a residence after the mortgagor defaulted.

The mortgagor brought a cross-motion in a related oppression action seeking an injunction to restrain the mortgage enforcement and an order for interim funding to pursue the oppression claim.

The court found that the mortgagor did not establish a strong prima facie case of oppression or show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

The court also found that the mortgagor did not meet the test for interim funding.

The motion for possession was granted, and the cross-motion for an injunction and interim funding was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants Isaify Inc. and Ali Imran Zaffar, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for a default judgment previously obtained against other defendants in the amount of $361,062.10.

The plaintiff alleged that Zaffar and Isaify participated in a fraudulent scheme by misrepresenting the financial health of a business partner and allowing their bank accounts to be used to divert funds from creditors.

The court found that the defendants' conduct amounted to fraud, as they knowingly misled the plaintiff and induced it into entering transactions that resulted in financial loss.

The court held that the defendants were bound by the default judgment and ordered them jointly and severally liable for the damages.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Gilmore J. dated May 19, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, inclusive, payable forthwith.

The appellant appealed an assessment under subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act related to the transfer of her husband's half-interest in their matrimonial home to her.

At the time of the transfer, the husband had an outstanding tax debt.

The Minister assessed the appellant on the basis that she provided no consideration for the transfer.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant provided consideration by assuming sole responsibility for a business line of credit that was previously the responsibility of her husband's company and her husband.

The matter was referred back to the Minister for reassessment to reflect the reduced shortfall in consideration.

The applicant obtained ex-parte Mareva and Norwich orders against his brother and sister-in-law, alleging they mismanaged a jointly owned corporation and breached an oral trust agreement.

The respondents moved to set aside the orders, arguing material non-disclosure and failure to meet the evidentiary threshold.

The court agreed, finding the applicant failed to disclose relevant correspondence and that contradictory evidence precluded a strong prima facie case.

However, given evidence of potential misappropriation, the court ordered a forensic accounting and froze the respondents' real property pending the investigation.

The appellant, Mark Waters, appealed a Master's decision ordering him to pay $25,000 as security for costs.

Waters, a former CFO, sued his lawyers, Richard Furlong and Furlong Collins, for negligent advice regarding the tax implications of a severance agreement.

After commencing the action, Waters moved to Nova Scotia, prompting the respondents to seek security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

The Master granted the order, finding Waters had not provided robust evidence of easily realizable assets in a reciprocating jurisdiction.

On appeal, Waters argued the Master erred in assessing his assets and the merits of the case.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Master's exercise of discretion, finding no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of Waters' evidence regarding assets or the preliminary assessment of the case's merits.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court which upheld an assessment officer's decision regarding solicitor's fees.

The appellant argued the assessment officer erred by double-counting factors in the Cohen v. Kealey analysis and in finding the underlying case was of average complexity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and noting that complexity was not a substantial factor since the solicitor accomplished nothing of value for the client.

This is a final costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff, Waugh, to enforce an undertaking.

The court reviewed submissions regarding the requirement for leave to bring the motion, noting that a prior judge had scheduled the motion despite a leave requirement and that counsel for Bentworth had not objected on this basis until later.

The court found it unfair to impose substantial indemnity costs on Waugh and ordered Waugh to pay partial indemnity costs of $14,000 plus HST to Bentworth Outdoor Storage Inc. and Hy Hershberg.

No costs were awarded to Pinckard as she did not appear.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion.

The court determined that the plaintiff should pay at least partial indemnity costs of $14,000 plus HST.

However, a previous order required the plaintiff to obtain leave before bringing any further motions.

The court deferred finalizing the costs order, requesting clear evidence from counsel as to whether the plaintiff had advised the court of the leave requirement and obtained leave, noting that if leave was not obtained, substantial indemnity costs of $21,000 plus HST would be ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendants breached an undertaking given to the court regarding the removal of his stored goods, and sought damages of $180,963.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether the undertaking bound the corporate defendant, the scope of the undertaking, and whether it was breached.

The court held that granting the requested relief summarily would be inappropriate, risk inconsistent findings, and fail to advance the litigation as a whole.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which was dismissed as meritless.

The responding party plaintiff sought costs of the motion.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim had none of the indicia of a SLAPP and there was no public interest in protecting the impugned expression.

The presumption against awarding costs to a successful respondent under s. 137.1(8) was rebutted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of $44,320.57.

Mary Aquino brought a motion for a garnishment hearing under Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary garnishment letters issued by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister had assessed Aquino for her common law spouse's pre-existing unpaid tax debt under the Retail Sales Tax Act (RSTA) and subsequently issued garnishment letters against her commissions and wages.

The court dismissed Aquino's motion, holding that Rule 60.08(16) does not apply to the Minister's garnishment letters issued under section 36 of the RSTA, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.