Jerome H. Stanleigh

The registrant brought a motion to adjourn her discipline hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

She sought the adjournment to bring a motion to vary the previous order, citing impecuniosity and an inability to comply.

The College opposed the adjournment.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment, finding no risk to the public as the registrant's certificate of registration was cancelled, no prejudice to the College, and that the short delay was appropriate given her new pro bono counsel's oversight.

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.

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.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

The plaintiffs, unpaid contractors on a home building project, brought a motion in two related actions for four orders: to transfer one action from Toronto to Newmarket, to amend their statements of claim to add defendants and allege fraudulent conveyances, to register certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) on the impugned properties, and for summary judgment against the corporate builder.

The court granted the venue transfer and summary judgment on consent.

The court also granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

However, the court dismissed the motion for CPLs, concluding that the plaintiffs' evidence regarding the fair market value of the properties was methodologically flawed and failed to establish a prima facie case of intent to defeat creditors.

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.

Two summary judgment motions were brought regarding equipment leasing contracts.

The lessor, National Leasing, sought judgment for unpaid lease amounts, while the vendor, Telepacer, sought to dismiss the lessees' claim for non-delivery of equipment.

The court found that the equipment was delivered, rejecting the lessees' unsupported assertions of non-delivery.

Furthermore, the court held that the lessees were bound by the lease terms to pay the outstanding amounts regardless of the delivery dispute.

Both motions for summary judgment were granted, and the lessees' counterclaim was dismissed.

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 appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that he had entered into a loan agreement with the respondent.

The trial judge accepted evidence that the appellant authorized an agent to borrow funds from the respondent to invest in a charitable tax shelter, with the agreement to repay the loan upon receiving a tax refund.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case turned on credibility and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in accepting the respondent's evidence over the appellant's.

The appellant, a listing real estate broker, appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding he was unjustly enriched and ordering him to share a commission with the respondent, a co-operating brokerage.

The respondent's agent had introduced the buyers to the property but failed to obtain a signed Buyer Representation Agreement.

The buyers subsequently approached the appellant directly, stated they were unrepresented, and signed a Buyer Representation Agreement with him.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant performed the work of a co-operating broker and had a valid juristic reason to retain the full commission.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

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 applicant brought a motion to change a consent order requiring payment of spousal support and arrears following a lengthy marriage.

He sought termination of ongoing support and elimination of arrears based on reduced income after retirement, alleged medical limitations affecting his ability to work overtime, financial hardship due to a new family, and alleged rental income earned by the respondent.

The court held that under s. 17 of the Divorce Act a material change in circumstances must be proven that was not contemplated at the time of the original order.

The alleged medical conditions, family circumstances, and retirement were either known or contemplated when the consent order was made, and the evidence of change was weak and largely unsupported.

The court also found the respondent’s alleged rental income did not constitute a material change.

The motion to terminate arrears and ongoing spousal support 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.