John Krawchenko

The respondents brought a Rule 2.1 motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal from a Small Claims Court assessment hearing.

The self-represented appellant alleged that the defendants lied at a settlement conference and that the deputy judge exhibited bias and misinterpreted facts.

The court found that the appellant's materials contained unsustainable allegations, gratuitous complaints, and confusing presentations characteristic of vexatious litigation.

The court concluded that the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff brought an action challenging the validity of her late mother's 2007 Will and seeking to uphold an earlier 2006 Will.

The defendant counterclaimed for an accounting of the mother's funds, alleging the plaintiff misappropriated money while acting as a joint account holder and attorney for property.

The court found the 2007 Will valid, concluding the defendant dispelled any suspicious circumstances and the plaintiff failed to prove undue influence.

On the accounting issue, the court held the plaintiff was a resulting trustee of the joint accounts and failed to meet the strict evidentiary burden to justify her expenditures.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and she was ordered to repay $137,443.29 to the estate.

Following the dismissal of the appellant landlord's appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The self-represented respondent sought over $800,000 in costs, while the appellant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent's costs claim was improperly advanced as a claim for damages.

However, recognizing that the respondent was successful and had to attend court, despite not filing responding materials, the court exercised its discretion to award the respondent a modest costs amount of $500.

The plaintiff, Giuseppina Mari, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Mujeeb Sanjer and Genan Zamt, following a failed real estate transaction.

The court considered whether the original or amended agreement of purchase and sale should be used to assess damages, whether the plaintiff mitigated her damages, and what additional damages were recoverable.

The court held that the original agreement applied, awarded damages based on the difference between the original sale price and the ultimate resale price, and allowed certain additional costs.

The court also found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate her losses.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a rent abatement to the tenant.

The tenant's unit was rendered uninhabitable by a fire caused by a neighbour, but the tenant continued paying rent until the tenancy was terminated by consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination that the landlord breached its maintenance obligations under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act was a question of mixed fact and law, over which the court had no jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the court held the LTB's decision to award an abatement was correct in law.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant father to amend his child’s birth certificate to include his name as a parent and to change the child’s surname to a hyphenated form reflecting both parents.

The court reviews the relevant legislative framework and the best interests of the child, ultimately exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

The court finds that the name change honours both parents, reflects the child’s biracial identity, and is already in use in various contexts.

The decision also discusses the mother’s unilateral naming of the child and the importance of both parents being recognized.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add Melissa Corzo Reyes and Mark Ziegert as defendants in an action relating to a series of loans and subsequent real estate transactions.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendments and addition of parties were appropriate and that no non-compensable prejudice would result.

The decision discusses the application of Rules 26.01 and 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the test for amendments, and the addition of parties, referencing relevant case law.

The plaintiff, Business Development Bank of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor, Kuruppu Appuham Jayatissa, seeking recovery of outstanding loan amounts and a declaration of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendant resisted the motion, arguing that she was deceived by a third party to whom she transferred the funds for real estate investments, and that a full trial was required.

The court found that the third-party dispute did not affect the defendant's liability under her personal guarantee and that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for $97,158.46 and declared that the defendant had fraudulently misrepresented the purpose of the loan.

This decision concerns the interpretation and distribution of proceeds from a Legal Expense Insurance (LEI) policy following the unsuccessful outcome of a personal injury trial.

The court considered whether the applicant (Spencer and Elite Insurance Company) or the respondent (Belton) was entitled to the policy funds, and whether the funds should be shared pro rata between costs and disbursements.

The court held that the policy funds were to be paid to the applicants to offset their costs, as the law firm (MHA) had abandoned its claim for disbursements, and that Belton was not a beneficiary entitled to direct the use of the funds.

The applicants, private lenders, sought rectification of the land register or re-registration of two discharged second mortgages after a failed real estate closing.

The court found that the applicants had received full payment and voluntarily returned the discharge funds to trust, and that there was no basis in law or equity to grant rectification or re-registration.

The application was dismissed.

The decision addresses two applications, heard together, seeking to have Nathalie Xian Yi Yan declared a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants, the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario and Mahadai Bahadur, presented evidence of Ms. Yan’s persistent and meritless litigation against numerous parties, including the College, its staff, and others.

The court found that Ms. Yan’s conduct met the statutory and common law indicia of vexatious litigation, including repeated unsuccessful proceedings, improper purposes, and failure to pay costs.

The court granted orders prohibiting Ms. Yan from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave, except for certain outstanding appeals.

This decision addresses an application by Kirk Neita against his late mother's intestate estate, claiming a 50% ownership interest in a property transferred to his mother in 2010, alleging fraud and improper use of a power of attorney.

The court dismissed Neita's application, primarily on two grounds: first, his evidence lacked the material corroboration required by section 13 of the Evidence Act for claims against a deceased's estate; and second, his claim was barred by the 2-year limitation period under the Trustee Act, which was found to apply over the 10-year Real Property Limitations Act.

The court also rejected Neita's argument that the discoverability principle extended the limitation period, finding he knew or ought to have known of the transfer in 2010.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions that dismissed his latest human rights application and denied his request for reconsideration.

The applicant alleged the decisions were unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and tainted by bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, the applicant was afforded procedural fairness despite his failure to seek leave as required, and there was no cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of impartiality of the adjudicators.

The defendants, the City of Hamilton and Craig Saunders, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claim sought $30 million in damages related to alleged illegal dumping of contaminated soil.

The court found that the defendants met their initial burden under Rule 56.01(1) and that the plaintiffs failed to prove impecuniosity, having structured their financial affairs to shelter assets through third-party litigation funding.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded that an order for security for costs was just and ordered the plaintiffs to pay a total of $376,976 into court.

The respondent moved to convert an application into an action, arguing material facts were in dispute regarding a trust agreement for a property.

The applicant opposed, asserting no material facts were in dispute concerning the trust's existence and seeking its enforcement.

The court dismissed the motion to convert, finding sufficient clarity on the trust issue from the record.

The court declared the trust agreement valid and enforceable, ordering 70% of the net proceeds from the property sale to be released to the applicant.

A trial of an issue was ordered to determine any reimbursements owed to the respondent for property expenses incurred from purchase to sale, pursuant to the trust agreement.

The applicant, a registered clinical psychologist, sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Psychologists of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program (SCERP) regarding professionalism in public statements.

The ICRC's order followed an investigation into the applicant's social media posts and public statements, which the committee found posed moderate risks of harm to the public and the profession.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest, in accordance with the Doré framework.

The Court also held that the ICRC's decision met the Vavilov standard of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, seeking payment on a Charge/Mortgage of Land and a writ of possession.

The defendants alleged a credit balance and argued that the plaintiff's actions regarding mortgage renewal were unconscionable.

The court found no merit in the defendants' arguments, concluding that the Charge had expired without renewal and was in default.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, along with an order for a writ of possession.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the application, finding that the applicant ought to have pursued a statutory appeal under s. 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, which limits appeals to questions of law.

The court held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism and declined to convert the application into an appeal.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant seeking an extension of time to pursue a statutory appeal.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his contempt motion against the respondent mother for failing to comply with court-ordered access.

The motion judge had found the mother's non-compliance was not intentional, as she could not afford travel due to the father's failure to pay ordered costs, and that Quebec, where the child had lived for over three years, was the proper jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the test for contempt or her determination that Ontario was no longer the appropriate jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Canada Forgings Inc. (CanForge), sued Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) alleging breach of a duty of fairness in a procurement process for nuclear reactor components.

CanForge claimed AECL unfairly favored a competitor, Patriot Forge Co., for end fitting forgings for the Bruce and Lepreau projects.

The court dismissed CanForge's claim on two primary grounds: first, it was statute-barred as the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was formally added to the Statement of Claim; second, no Contract A existed between CanForge and AECL, meaning no implied duty of fairness was owed to CanForge as a subcontractor.

The court also assessed damages hypothetically, finding no lost profits even if the claim had succeeded.