John Krawchenko

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

Hong Lam, a former mutual fund representative, brought a motion to set aside a Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) Hearing Panel Order, which had been filed as a Superior Court Order under the amended s. 151 of the Securities Act.

Lam argued the amendment should not apply retrospectively to his pre-enactment conduct and that it impacted his substantive rights.

The MFDA argued it was an immediate application to an ongoing situation or, alternatively, a procedural change.

The MFDA also brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging Lam concealed property during an examination in aid of execution.

The court dismissed Lam's motion, finding that s. 151 applied immediately to the filing of the Hearing Panel decision, which occurred after the amendment, and was procedural in nature.

The court also dismissed the MFDA's cross-motion for contempt, finding that the MFDA failed to prove concealment beyond a reasonable doubt.