John Polyzogopoulos

The applicant receiver sought leave to issue a writ of possession over a mortgaged property after alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by renting out the property rather than residing there.

The dispute centred on the interpretation of the phrase that the respondent would “remain in possession” of the property.

Applying established principles of contractual interpretation, the court held the settlement terms were clear and did not require the respondent to personally reside at the property.

The respondent retained possession so long as specified obligations were met, and there was no evidence those conditions were breached.

Accordingly, the alleged breach did not occur and the applicant was not entitled to enforce possession.

The appellants appealed an order finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the claims fell within Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, establishing a presumption of jurisdiction simpliciter based on a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Court also deferred to the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario was the convenient forum, noting the location of parties and witnesses.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's conclusions, noting that the motion judge carefully reviewed the record and allowed any claim with a scintilla of evidence to proceed to trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant Bank appealed an order striking its amended third party claim without leave to amend for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the pleading failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.06(8) by not providing particulars of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by making findings of fact and relying on inadmissible evidence on a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion.

The appeal was allowed in part to grant the Bank leave to amend its third party claim.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its oppression claim regarding the sale of a debtor's assets and the refusal to permit redemption of shares.

The Court of Appeal assumed jurisdiction without deciding the issue.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was a participant in the prior receivership proceedings where the sale was approved and chose to take no position.

The proper time and place to protest the unfairness of the sale was during the motion to approve the sale in the receivership proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found the parties entered into a contract containing a performance guarantee, which the respondents breached, but limited damages to $1.00.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by finding a performance guarantee existed despite it not being explicitly pleaded as a term, and by failing to find it unconscionable.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to order the parties to bear their own costs despite a Rule 49.10 offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions on the contract terms were supported by the pleadings and evidence, and her discretion on costs was properly exercised.

The appellants appealed an order granting judgment on the respondent's claim for payment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent's claim and the appellants' claim for set off were so interrelated that judgment should not have been granted on the former if the latter was to proceed.

The court directed a trial for both claims and ordered the funds held in trust to remain as security pending further court order.

The appellants appealed an order of the motions judge which found that a previous order was not for the payment of money and therefore did not attract an automatic stay pending appeal under Rule 63.01.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, distinguishing prior case law on the basis that the holder of the funds was not an independent third party and there was a dispute concerning the debt.

The Court concluded the order practically required the payment of money between the parties and directed that the order be stayed pending appeal.