John Russo

The City of Mississauga brought a motion for interim statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain respondents from contravening the City's Nuisance Gathering By-law 0211-2023.

The motion concerned unsanctioned large-scale gatherings at Ridgeway Plaza scheduled for August 13-14 and 19, 2025, coinciding with Pakistan Independence Day and Afghanistan Independence Day celebrations.

The court granted an interim quia timet injunction against all respondents but declined to grant a statutory injunction against the condominium corporations, finding they were not engaged in ongoing by-law contraventions.

The court balanced the serious public safety risks from overcrowding against Charter rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The applicant, 2719149 Ontario Inc. o/a Reef Bakery, sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction after being locked out of its leased premises by the respondent landlord, 1000960018 Ontario Inc. The dispute centered on whether the lease was properly renewed and the calculation of additional rent.

The court found a strong prima facie case for the applicant, irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The court ordered the applicant be permitted to regain possession of the premises and restrained the respondent from interfering with the applicant’s possession pending final determination.

The applicant, Textile City Inc., sought relief against forfeiture of a sublease after the respondent, Reliable Logistics, attempted to terminate it, alleging non-permitted retail use and other breaches.

The court found that Textile City Inc. had indeed breached the lease by operating a retail business from the office space, but that Reliable Logistics had not waived its right to forfeiture by accepting rent.

However, the court granted relief against forfeiture, finding that Reliable Logistics had acted in bad faith through a series of actions aimed at forcing Textile City Inc. to vacate, and that Textile City Inc.'s breach was modest and had ceased.

The court also addressed ancillary issues regarding additional rent, garbage bins, and signage.

In the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings, the applicants and various equipment financiers reached an impasse regarding the wind-down plan and a proposed going-concern sale of the logistics business.

The applicants sought a monetization order, an increase in the administration charge, and lien regularization, which were unopposed and granted by the court to maintain operations.

Due to significant disputes over the sale and liquidation of assets, the court adjourned the contested motions, including several lift-stay motions brought by creditors, and ordered the parties to attend mandatory mediation before a former Commercial List judge.

The court monitor brought a motion for advice and directions due to the defendants' failure to comply with a prior court order requiring them to provide financial disclosure and a $500,000 retainer.

The defendants opposed the motion but failed to file any evidentiary record.

The court granted the Monitor's motion, ordering the defendants to comply with the prior order, provide the required financial records, and authorizing the release of the retainer funds from a specific bank account.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment where the plaintiff obtained a monetary award of approximately $936,000, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff relied on the terms of its loan agreements with the defendants, which provided for costs associated with enforcement proceedings to be paid on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted it retains discretion over costs despite contractual agreements, but found the amount sought proportionate and reasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $45,733.98 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff commercial lender brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for outstanding loans and guarantees totaling over $900,000.

The individual defendant sought an adjournment and leave to amend third-party claims against former lawyers and other parties, which the court denied as duplicative and irrelevant.

On the summary judgment motion, the defendant argued the plaintiff had a duty to realize on the collateral before enforcing the guarantees.

The court rejected this defence, finding the guarantees were absolute and unconditional, and granted summary judgment for the debt and possession of the collateral properties.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that Gabriel Kit Chun Fung knew or was willfully blind to the fact that he was purchasing stolen goods or goods fraudulently obtained by Nadia Minetto, the accounting manager of Wescom Solutions Inc. Between early 2012 and July 2014, Fung purchased approximately $6.2 million in iPhones and iPads from Minetto, who had fraudulently obtained them using Wescom's corporate credit card.

The trial judge divided the transactions into three stages and found Fung was not willfully blind in Stage 1, was willfully blind in Stage 2, and had actual knowledge in Stage 3.

The trial judge awarded damages of $5,094,767.72 plus interest.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by applying an objective standard to the wilful blindness analysis and by making adverse credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the trial judge's mischaracterization of the wilful blindness standard, the factual findings supported a subjective finding of wilful blindness.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant Russell Madarash, in his personal capacity and as a representative of the other defendants, to attend a mandatory mediation session in Toronto in person.

The defendants argued that Mr. Madarash, residing in Regina, Saskatchewan, lacked the financial resources for personal attendance and should be permitted to attend via telephone or video conference.

The court, applying principles regarding exemptions from personal attendance at mediation, found that Mr. Madarash had not provided sufficient evidence to establish an inability to pay for travel costs.

The motion was granted, compelling Mr. Madarash to attend in person, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant was unsuccessful in her motions and the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant had misappropriated funds contrary to a consent order and attempted to cover it up, which precipitated the motions.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the amounts at $24,817.63 for the family law proceeding and $29,443.41 for the civil proceeding.

The applicants sought costs following the resolution of a dispute regarding the sale of a property.

The court found that the respondent's position and conduct during negotiations and litigation were unreasonable, as she failed to provide evidence or comply with procedural requirements.

The applicants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,278.16, to be paid from the respondent's share of the proceeds of the sale of the subject property.

This endorsement concerns costs following the setting aside of a Mareva injunction against the defendant, Ms. Chang, due to the plaintiff's principal's failure to make full, fair, and frank disclosure.

Ms. Chang sought substantial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff proposed a significantly lower amount.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the defendant's success on the injunction motion and the plaintiff's principal's inappropriate conduct.

Costs were fixed at $20,000, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiff corporation and its principal, Mr. Deng, due to his misconduct and to prevent Ms. Chang, a minority shareholder, from effectively paying her own costs.

Ms. Chang moved to set aside a Mareva injunction previously granted against her, alleging that the plaintiff, Maxjoyce Express Inc., failed to provide full, fair, and frank disclosure of material facts during the ex parte application for the injunction.

The court found that Maxjoyce's representative, Mr. Deng, intentionally omitted and misrepresented several material facts, including his own unauthorized withdrawals of funds, Ms. Chang's directorship, and her explicit refusal to consent to fund transfers.

The court concluded that these were not mere 'sloppy' errors but material facts that should have been disclosed.

Consequently, the Mareva injunction was set aside.

The court considered costs following a successful motion by Hardath Singh, Ramkali Mohan, 1415006 Ontario Ltd., and Maple Leaf Wheelchair Manufacturing Inc. to secure a stay of a Notice of Arbitration.

The success was based on the legal principle against a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, which outweighed the policy favouring arbitration agreements.

Despite the successful outcome for these parties, the court ordered that costs be "in the cause," citing fairness under Rule 57.01(i).

This decision defers the final determination of costs to the trial judge, who will have a full understanding of the conflicting claims and procedural history.

The applicants sought to stay a Notice of Arbitration delivered by the respondent regarding an oppression claim, arguing that the dispute involved a non-party to the arbitration agreement and shared factual underpinnings with an ongoing court action.

The court found that while the non-party issue was not a roadblock to arbitration, there was a real danger of overlapping evidence and inconsistent findings of fact between the arbitration and the ongoing action.

The court granted the stay, ordering all matters to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice.

The moving party sought to set aside a default judgment obtained in a property management services dispute or, alternatively, to vary the judgment by removing a 36% prejudgment interest component.

Applying the three-part test under Rule 19.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the motion was not brought without delay and that the circumstances leading to the default were not adequately explained.

However, the court concluded that part of the defence relating to two repair invoices had an arguable basis.

The court varied the judgment by granting partial judgment for the undisputed portion of the debt, reducing the interest rate to 5%, and setting aside the balance of the claim so that it could be defended.

The remaining dispute was transferred to the Small Claims Court for adjudication.