Jeremy Sacks

The applicants sought an order for adverse possession of a parcel of city-owned parkland that had been enclosed in their backyard by a chain-link fence for decades.

The City acknowledged the traditional test for adverse possession was met but argued the lands were immune as public property.

The court found that the lands were originally expropriated for a high public interest purpose and that private individuals cannot acquire title by fencing off public lands.

The application for adverse possession was dismissed.

The sublandlord brought a motion for summary judgment in its action for breach of a commercial sublease and to dismiss the subtenant's related action for unlawful termination and damages.

The subtenant had intentionally withheld rent during surrender negotiations, prompting the sublandlord to terminate the sublease and lock out the subtenant.

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate despite the intertwined nature of the actions.

The court held that the sublandlord lawfully terminated the sublease due to the subtenant's deliberate default and dismissed the subtenant's claims for lack of evidence.

The sublandlord was awarded damages for rent arrears and operating costs, but its claim for future loss of profit was denied due to insufficient evidence.

In a bankruptcy proposal proceeding, the fourth mortgagee brought a motion for a vesting order to purchase the debtor's property, while a competing purchaser brought a cross-motion to set aside a previous vesting order on the basis of lack of notice.

The court found that the competing purchaser had been unfairly deprived of notice and the opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The court terminated all previous agreements of purchase and sale and ordered a new confidential bidding process to ensure fairness.

Following a successful appeal that reduced the plaintiff's damages award in a construction lien trial, the court considered written submissions on the costs awarded by the Master.

The Master had originally awarded the plaintiff $485,000 in costs based on an erroneous application of Rule 49.

The court found that the plaintiff's second offer to settle implicitly withdrew its first offer, and since the reduced damages award was less than the second offer, Rule 49 did not apply.

The court reduced the Master's costs award to $236,500 on a partial indemnity scale to reflect proportionality and the reduced damages award.

The Monitor in a CCAA proceeding brought a motion to disallow a $2.3 million secured claim filed by a creditor.

The Monitor argued the secured guarantee given by the insolvent debtor was a transfer at undervalue under s. 96 of the BIA or a fraudulent conveyance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the debtor and creditor were operating at arm's length and that the Monitor failed to prove the debtor granted the guarantee with the intent to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors.

The defendants brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of a Master's report following a 29-day trial on a construction lien reference.

The Master had awarded the plaintiff $243,325.20 plus costs and elevated pre-judgment interest, largely based on adverse credibility findings against the defendants.

The Superior Court found that the Master made a palpable and overriding error by misreading the date on a key invoice, which tainted his credibility assessment and led to an erroneous $72,000 award for 'extra' design work.

The court deducted the $72,000 from the judgment and reduced the pre-judgment interest to the statutory rate, but upheld the Master's findings on commissions for builder upgrades, price reductions, and post-termination items.

The defendants were awarded $19,000 in costs for the motion.

The moving party, a condominium corporation, sought an order under s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act to vacate a construction lien registered by the respondent contractor upon posting security in an amount significantly less than the $2,744,377 claimed.

The dispute arose from a fixed-price contract for condominium renovations where the scope of work expanded, leading to unapproved change orders and an extended duration claim.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that while many factual disputes required a trial, certain portions of the lien claim, including specific unapproved change orders and most of the extended duration claim, lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

The court ordered the lien vacated upon the posting of security reduced by $1,181,833.79 plus HST, along with $50,000 for costs.

The applicant and respondent, corporate entities controlled by a son and father respectively, jointly owned a commercial property.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the property under the Partition Act, which the respondent opposed, citing malicious conduct and a contractual right of first refusal.

The respondent also claimed unpaid rental income.

The court held that the applicant had a prima facie right to sell the property and had not acted maliciously, but was bound by the right of first refusal.

The court ordered that the applicant's prior offer to sell its interest to the respondent remain open for an additional 60 days, after which the property could be sold on the open market if no agreement was reached.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent its share of outstanding rental payments.

In a priority dispute under the Construction Lien Act, the court determined the relative priorities of several mortgagees and construction lien claimants.

The court held that professional fees incurred by a first mortgagee to protect its security constituted an 'advance' under section 78(6) of the Act, granting it priority.

The court also found that a $10 million advance made jointly to two borrowers under a second mortgage was an advance in respect of that mortgage, giving it priority over the lien claimants.

However, the court ruled that an advance made under a loan agreement to a third party was not an advance in respect of a collateral mortgage given by the developer as guarantor, meaning the lien claimants had priority over the collateral mortgage.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant mutual fund dealers for inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment after the defendants acquired the book of business of the plaintiff's tenant, who subsequently defaulted on its lease and went bankrupt.

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

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants did not intend to procure a breach of the lease, did not engage in unlawful conduct targeting the plaintiff, and that the bankruptcy process provided a juristic reason for any enrichment.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity scale.

The owner of a condominium construction project moved to reduce posted security and obtain summary judgment discharging or reducing a contractor’s construction lien claims.

The moving party argued the contractor’s liens should be eliminated or reduced because a subcontractor’s lien action had been dismissed, because contract prices allegedly contained PST eliminated by the introduction of HST, and because the owner paid $40,000 directly to a sub‑subcontractor.

The court held that dismissal of the subcontractor’s lien did not affect the contractor’s lien rights, as lien entitlement is based on the contract price between owner and contractor under the Construction Lien Act and not on the subcontractor’s separate claims.

The court also rejected the alleged PST credit due to insufficient evidence.

The motion succeeded only to the extent that the contractor’s liens and posted security were reduced by $40,000 corresponding to the direct payment to the sub‑subcontractor.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the individual defendants for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The corporate contractor had failed to pay the plaintiff for completed flooring work despite receiving funds from the owners and swearing a statutory declaration that all sub-trades had been paid.

The court found a breach of trust occurred and held two of the individual defendants personally liable under s. 13(1) of the Act, finding they had effective control of the corporation and acquiesced in the breach.

The action against a third individual defendant, an employee, was dismissed.