Jeffrey Radnoff

The plaintiffs commenced a solicitor's negligence action against the defendant lawyer as a precautionary measure, alleging he failed to prosecute an underlying fraud action.

The plaintiffs took no steps in the negligence action for over two years, intending to hold it in abeyance pending the outcome of a second underlying action against the fraudsters.

At a status hearing, the court applied the Khan test and found that while the plaintiffs' unilateral decision to hold the action in abeyance without notifying the defendant was unreasonable, a contextual approach favoured allowing the action to proceed on its merits, as the defendant suffered no prejudice.

The appellant, a former director who paid the company's outstanding GST and payroll remittances, appealed the dismissal of his claim for contribution from the respondents, whom he alleged were also directors.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by independently determining the respondents' tax liability instead of deferring to the Canada Revenue Agency's assessments.

However, applying the correct approach, the appeal was dismissed because the CRA had determined that neither respondent was liable for the tax.

The appellant's alternative claim for unjust enrichment also failed as the respondents received no benefit.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion for an interlocutory injunction against the Canada Revenue Agency.

The motion judge had found that the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction and that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the test under Rule 62.02(4) as there was no issue of broad general importance and it was not desirable to grant leave given the parallel proceeding in the Federal Court.

The appellant real estate agency appealed a Master's decision refusing leave to amend its statement of claim to add a claim for constructive trust based on unjust enrichment for an unpaid commission.

The appellant sought a constructive trust over $173,840 of the purchase funds deposited in a solicitor's trust account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the relationship between a vendor and a real estate agent is that of debtor and creditor, not a trust relationship.

The pleadings failed to establish a nexus between the services rendered and the property, or that a monetary remedy would be inadequate.

The respondent, Anna Mauro, brought a motion for costs following an abandoned judicial review application and a previously dismissed stay motion.

The Divisional Court awarded the respondent $2,500 in costs for the stay motion, noting that while she was successful, the issues were not complicated and she had filed irrelevant material.

The court declined to award costs for the abandoned application, as the matter was moot and no steps were required by the respondent.

The appellants brought an application for a stay, which was dismissed, and the appeal was stayed pending the appointment of a new trustee of the family trust.

The appointment process was subsequently resolved on consent and the appeal was abandoned.

The respondent sought costs for the stay motion.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, noting that the appellants could have achieved their desired result without bringing an unsuccessful stay application.

Costs were fixed at $15,000.

The appellant appealed an order of the Master refusing leave to amend its Statement of Claim in an action for a real estate commission.

The proposed amendments sought to add claims for express, implied, and constructive trusts over funds held in a solicitor's trust account, and to obtain a certificate of pending litigation against unrelated lands.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that the proposed amendments were not tenable in law, as the relationship between a real estate agent and vendor is one of debtor and creditor, not a trust relationship.

The court also dismissed the appellant's motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The appellant appealed a judgment interpreting an agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plain reading of the agreement required an 'all cash offer'.

The appellant's September 10, 2006 proposal, although containing a cash component exceeding the amount set out in the agreement, was not an 'all cash offer' and therefore did not comply with the agreement.

Assuming the CCAA applied, the court granted leave and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment finding that they wrongfully terminated a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the respondent was not in arrears of rent but had a credit in its favour, and therefore the appellants were not entitled to terminate the lease.

The court also rejected the appellants' argument that the respondent engaged in wrongful conduct to mislead them.