Jerome H. Stanleigh

The respondents moved to strike the applicant's application for want of jurisdiction.

The application sought court interpretation of a commercial lease renewal clause and an order fixing the rental rate, as the parties could not agree.

The court found the renewal clause, which stated the rental rate "shall be agreed upon," was an unenforceable "agreement to agree" because it lacked any mechanism or objective standard (like market rate) for determining the rent if the parties failed to agree.

The court distinguished this from cases where such mechanisms existed and rejected the applicant's argument of bad faith negotiation, finding the respondents' conduct did not meet the high threshold.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to set the rental rate, and the application was struck.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses delays in the discovery process across several consolidated actions.

The primary issue identified was Mr. Behzad Pilehvar's failure to produce all relevant documents, including approximately 11,000 emails and text messages.

The court ordered Mr. Pilehvar to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents by December 19, 2023.

The endorsement also noted Mr. Pilehvar's counsel's contemplation of bringing a motion to remove himself from the record, which would impact scheduled discoveries and a planned mediation session in early spring 2024.

The court provided directions for scheduling future motions and case conferences.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses delays in the discovery process across several consolidated actions.

The primary issue identified was Mr. Behzad Pilehvar's failure to produce all relevant documents, including approximately 11,000 emails and text messages.

The court ordered Mr. Pilehvar to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents by December 19, 2023.

The endorsement also noted Mr. Pilehvar's counsel's contemplation of bringing a motion to remove himself from the record, which would impact scheduled discoveries and a planned mediation session in early spring 2024.

The court provided directions for scheduling future motions and case conferences.

The appellant landlord appealed a motion judge's decision not to terminate a commercial tenancy and grant a writ of possession, despite the tenant's late payment of outstanding rent.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the substantive rights in the ongoing action.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court for the appellant to seek leave.

The defendants were previously found in civil contempt for breaching a court order that permanently enjoined them from infringing the plaintiffs' copyrights and trademarks by streaming content over Shava TV.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the court noted that the defendants had substantially ceased the offending conduct and assigned the Shava TV rights to the plaintiffs.

The court declined to impose the jail sentences sought by the plaintiffs, finding that a conditional discharge subject to two years less a day of probation would better achieve the coercive purpose of civil contempt.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $484,305.

The appellant purchased a restaurant from the respondent and subsequently sued for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the restaurant's revenues.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no misrepresentation and stating the appellant should have verified the actual sales receipts provided to her.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by ignoring formal admissions regarding the revenue representations and by improperly relying on the appellant's lack of due diligence as a defence to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs sought to hold the defendants, Imran and Naeem Butt, in contempt of a prior judgment from Justice Pattillo dated August 1, 2018, which recognized and enforced a U.S. judgment prohibiting copyright and trademark infringement related to pirated television channels sold under the "ShavaTV" brand.

The defendants conceded some contempt but disputed its extent.

The court found the defendants in broad contempt, rejecting their claim that the business was transferred to a third party in Pakistan, Rizwan Ahmed Shams.

The court found the alleged transfer implausible due to lack of documentation, continued use of the defendants' PayPal accounts for business and personal expenses, and Mr. Shams' refusal to be cross-examined.

The court also confirmed jurisdiction over Naeem Butt, who resided in Germany, due to the real and substantial connection with Ontario, including sales to Ontario purchasers and use of a Canadian hosting company.

The respondent husband moved for an order to have his Canadian passport and other travel documents returned, or alternatively, for a declaration that he had complied with a previous support order by serving 90 days incarceration for non-payment.

The court found the husband's financial evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies and not credible, noting a significant discrepancy between his representations to a lending institution in 2014 and his current financial statements to the court.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, concluding that his true objective was to retrieve his passport and flee the jurisdiction, which would irreparably prejudice the applicant wife's support and equalization rights.

The applicant sought a declaration of marriage validity under Ghanaian customary law, spousal and child support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent denied the marriage and disputed financial claims.

The court found the applicant's testimony credible and the respondent's incredible, confirming the validity of the customary marriage in Ghana.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to non-disclosure and inconsistencies, ordered child and spousal support retroactive to the separation date, and an equalization payment.

The matrimonial home was ordered to be listed for sale, and the respondent was to maintain a life insurance policy for the applicant.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the action and set aside service on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $16,895.58, which the plaintiff largely left unchallenged.

The court found the claimed fees and disbursements to be fair, reasonable, and proportional, and awarded the defendants their requested costs in full.

The plaintiff brought two motions: one for leave to amend the statement of claim to add fraudulent conveyance allegations against the defendants' children, and another to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits.

The defendants did not oppose the amendment but opposed the refusals motion.

The court granted leave to amend as of right.

However, the court dismissed the refusals motion, finding that the broad questions regarding the children's financial circumstances were not relevant to the pending jurisdiction motion, which would focus on factors such as where the parties reside and where the loan contracts were made.

The defendant corporation moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after a damages hearing arising from the sale of allegedly faulty woodworking equipment.

The court applied the test under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the moving party to explain the default, bring the motion without undue delay, and demonstrate a triable defence.

Although the defendant advanced an arguable defence, the court found the corporate principal knew of service of the statement of claim, delayed bringing the motion for strategic reasons, and provided unreliable affidavit evidence.

The court also found prejudice to the plaintiff due to the death of a key witness involved in the transaction.

Balancing the interests of justice, the motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor for $145,000 based on a 2002 personal guarantee of a corporate loan.

The defendant argued that a subsequent 2005 guarantee for $150,000, which had been satisfied by the sale of a mortgaged property, was meant to replace the 2002 guarantee.

The court rejected this argument, noting the clear language in the guarantee stating it was in addition to and not in substitution for any other guarantee.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the bank.

The applicant sought repayment of funds allegedly held in a foreign exchange trading account maintained with the respondent trading platform.

The respondent claimed the account had a negative balance due to improper trading practices and alleged retroactive losses arising from trades purportedly closed by a liquidity provider more than a month after the original transactions.

After reviewing account records, journal logs, and expert evidence, the court found the disputed trades were not the result of improper trading and that the alleged later closings did not occur.

The court concluded the respondent manipulated records to fabricate losses and retroactively adjust the account balance.

The applicant was awarded damages equal to the account balance shown in the earlier statement, an unpaid contractual bonus, and punitive damages.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant employer moved for a more particularized disclosure and a further and better affidavit of documents from the plaintiff employee before proceeding with examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff cross‑moved to strike the statement of defence based on the defendant’s repeated failure to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.

The court held that the documents requested by the defendant, including bank statements, credit card records, and passport and immigration documents, were clearly relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings regarding wages, overtime compensation, and the circumstances surrounding the termination of employment.

However, the court also found that the defendant contributed to delay by failing to promptly bring a motion to compel disclosure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested documents and a sworn supplementary affidavit of documents and set a timetable for discoveries and trial preparation, while declining to strike the defence and awarding no costs.

The plaintiff equipment leasing company brought a motion for summary judgment alleging fraud arising from equipment leases entered into with corporate defendants and individuals.

The plaintiff claimed it was induced by false representations to purchase and lease heavy construction equipment, much of which was not recovered after the leases went into default.

One individual defendant asserted she signed documents under the direction of another individual and lacked knowledge of the alleged misrepresentations, raising credibility issues.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a full appreciation of the issues regarding that defendant and required a trial.

However, partial summary judgment was granted against the other individual defendant, who had not defended the action, for the liquidated damages amount.