J.F. Lalonde

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,650,000 provided by the defendants as vendor takeback financing for the purchase of the plaintiff's company pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The defendants are pursuing a separate Ontario action claiming rescission of the share purchase agreement and damages for alleged misrepresentations and non-disclosures.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding it inappropriate to grant judgment on the promissory note while the entire underlying transaction remains in dispute in the related proceeding.

The court ordered that the promissory note claim may be tried together with or consolidated with the defendants' counterclaim, or asserted as a cross-claim in the related action.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants, Trinitee Okoye and Olivia Singaye, seeking to stay or dismiss a defamation action by the plaintiffs, Reynolds Okoh, Axel Mensah, and 2357392 Ontario Inc. o/a The Palace Ottawa.

The court found that the impugned social media posts did not constitute expression on a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Even if the threshold were met, the court held that the action had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment were unlikely to succeed.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Henry Brent Shelp, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against GoSecure Inc. The main issues were the period of common law reasonable notice and the calculation of income loss, particularly entitlement to sales commissions during the notice period.

The court found the matter suitable for summary judgment and determined that the reasonable notice period was six months.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages including base salary, commissions, benefits, and cell phone allowance for the notice period, less mitigation income and amounts already paid.

The total damages awarded were $163,659.92 plus pre-judgment interest.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to trial preparation and substantial indemnity for trial preparation and trial.

The defendants argued for a cap on costs, asserting the Small Claims Court Act should apply due to the damages awarded being below the Small Claims Court limit.

The court found that the action, brought under simplified procedure in the Superior Court, was not subject to the Small Claims Court Act's cost cap.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for trial preparation and trial, and partial indemnity for earlier proceedings, due to the defendants' reprehensible conduct, including deliberate departure from approved building plans, failure to comply with interim court orders, and improper conduct during trial.

The total costs awarded to the plaintiff were $110,000.

The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance and property damage under the simplified procedure (Rule 76), seeking mandatory and injunctive relief.

At the outset of the trial, the defendants argued that the action was improperly commenced under Rule 76 because it sought injunctive relief, and asked the court to strike those claims.

The court rejected the defendants' argument, holding that Rule 76 does not preclude claims for injunctive or mandatory relief provided the action otherwise complies with the rule.

The court affirmed its equitable jurisdiction to grant such relief in simplified procedure actions and noted the defendants suffered no prejudice.

The plaintiff sued his neighbours for nuisance and the tort in Rylands v. Fletcher due to water and debris migration from their property onto his.

The defendants had built their property in deliberate disregard of city-approved plans, leading to improper roof slope, downpipe placement, grading, and retaining wall construction.

The court found the defendants liable for nuisance, awarding the plaintiff compensatory damages for property repairs and general damages for loss of enjoyment.

A mandatory injunction was issued requiring the defendants to undertake specific remedial construction to abate the nuisance.

Punitive damages were denied as disproportionate given the injunctive relief.

The Corporation of the Town of Renfrew sought costs after successfully obtaining declarations of ownership, injunctive relief against trespassing, and an order for the removal of encroachments and a non-compliant scaffolding.

The respondents, who were self-represented, opposed the costs request and sought their own costs.

The court awarded the applicant $8,500 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that the respondents' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant, Felicia Georgina Zigiris, brought a motion for costs after the plaintiffs discontinued their action against her.

The plaintiffs had alleged conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental distress, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court found no bona fide cause of action against Ms. Zigiris, as the evidence presented (letters and an audio recording) did not substantiate the serious allegations of conspiracy or disclosure of health information.

The court struck inadmissible opinion and argument from the plaintiffs' affidavits.

Given the unsubstantiated and serious nature of the allegations, the court awarded costs to Ms. Zigiris on a substantial indemnity basis for the discontinued action and on a partial indemnity basis for the costs motion, rejecting the plaintiffs' prior settlement offer.

The Corporation of the Town of Renfrew brought a motion seeking declarations of ownership over two properties (200 Stewart Street and the Ready Street road allowance), an injunction against the respondents for trespassing, an order for the removal of items and restoration of the properties, and an order for the removal of scaffolding from the respondents' property due to a by-law violation.

The respondents disputed ownership, claiming a by-law granted them rights, and raised various unrelated grievances.

The court found Renfrew to be the titled owner, confirmed the respondents were trespassing, and granted the requested declarations and injunctions, including the removal of items and scaffolding.

The respondents' arguments regarding adverse possession and by-law interpretation were rejected.

The moving party, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside or vary an appeal decision, alleging fraud.

The Court of Appeal, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding no basis for the fraud claim.

The applicant shareholder brought an application under the Business Corporations Act to compel the respondent corporation to produce audited financial statements and appoint an auditor.

The respondents agreed to the appointment but argued the audits should only cover 2020 to present, claiming earlier years were barred by estoppel and the Limitations Act.

The court held that the right to audited financial statements is a mandatory statutory right not subject to the Limitations Act, as it is not a 'claim' for injury or loss.

The court ordered the production of audited financial statements from 2013 to present.

This appeal concerns the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP provision, s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, in a defamation action arising from negative online reviews posted by a client against contractors.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the public interest in the expression outweighed the harm.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by unduly focusing on SLAPP hallmarks, failing to adequately consider reputational harm, and not qualitatively assessing the value of the respondent's vitriolic expression.

The Court conducted a fresh analysis, concluding that the significant harm to the appellants' professional reputations outweighed the minimal public interest in the malicious and scurrilous statements, reinstating the defamation action.

The appellant appealed an order declaring her a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, which also discontinued her action against the respondents and prohibited further proceedings without leave.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the appellant's history of multiple, unsupported, and vexatious proceedings stemming from a rental dispute, including fraudulent affidavits, numerous appeals of procedural orders, and incredible claims.

The court found ample evidence that the appellant conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner and for improper purposes, upholding the application judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This decision addresses whether legal costs incurred to obtain a declaration that a debt survives bankruptcy under section 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) also survive the bankrupt's discharge.

The plaintiff had previously obtained a ruling that its debt against a defendant survived his bankruptcy.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs ($50,000) for that prior motion, but disputed whether these costs were also non-dischargeable.

The plaintiff argued that the costs were an intrinsic consequence of the judgment.

The defendants contended that these were post-bankruptcy debts, separate from the original debt, and did not fall under BIA exceptions.

The court, distinguishing the case from those where bankruptcy had not yet occurred, held that it would be inequitable for the underlying debt to survive bankruptcy while the costs necessary to secure that declaration did not.

The court found the costs to be an intrinsic aspect of the judgment and therefore ordered that they also survive the bankrupt's discharge.

No costs were awarded for the present costs motion.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by 2651171 Ontario Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs for the motions for summary judgment and the action.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 49.10(1).

The respondent, Patrick Brey, objected to the quantum and argued for a reduction due to the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud.

The court found the appellant prima facie entitled to substantial indemnity costs due to the offer to settle, but ordered a reduction in the total amount awarded due to the unfounded allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the appellant, emphasizing that such serious allegations require strict pleading and proof.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a real estate agreement's requisition deadline for off-title objections, specifically regarding the lawful use of a property described as a fourplex.

The appellant buyer raised timely objections about the property's legal use, which the respondent seller refused to address, leading to the transaction's failure.

The motion judge had erred by misinterpreting the deadline provision, deeming the objections untimely.

The Court of Appeal found the objections were timely and valid, as the property's lawful use as a fourplex could not be confirmed.

The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted the return of its deposit and damages.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence in an action concerning the removal of a boundary tree during construction.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing they constituted a withdrawal of admissions regarding the tree's location, would cause non-compensable prejudice due to an expired limitation period, and included untenable defences.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding the original statements about the tree's location were mis-pleadings rather than intentional admissions, and that the plaintiff would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add paragraphs alleging defamation and bad faith, finding them vexatious and lacking sufficient particulars.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs, a home renovation contractor and his wife.

The action arose from a Reddit post by the defendant calling the plaintiffs 'fraudsters' and 'scammers' after a contract dispute.

The court found the expression related to a matter of public interest.

Although the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiffs failed to show they suffered any financial harm, as their YouTube business was thriving and their renovation business had closed before the post.

The court concluded the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression outweighed the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to declare that a default judgment debt owed by the defendant, a corporate director, survived his bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendant had breached the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act by allowing construction financing funds to be used for non-project purposes.

The court found that the defendant, as a fiduciary, misappropriated trust funds through willful blindness and failure to oversee the corporation's finances.

The court declared that the judgment debt of $181,133.23 plus costs survived the bankruptcy.

Following a successful application for wrongful dismissal where the applicant was awarded ten months' notice, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought $74,524.59 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the respondent argued for partial indemnity costs of approximately $30,000.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 and that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis for the application, a motion to amend, and an abandoned motion to compel, fixing the total all-inclusive costs at $47,000.