Jonathan Lyon Mendes Miller

Following a trial for wrongful dismissal where the plaintiff was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should impact costs, that costs should be distributed due to the plaintiff's unsuccessful bad faith claims, and that the plaintiff should pay substantial indemnity costs for those allegations.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding the offers did not meet Rule 49 requirements and the bad faith claims, while unsuccessful, were not reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff $171,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past criminal conviction for sexual exploitation of a young person, for which she was still on probation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, which involved a significant breach of trust and a five-year improper relationship, provided reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

Fabiene Evans, a chartered accountant and institutional equity salesperson, was constructively dismissed by Paradigm Capital Inc. after being offered a significantly altered role with reduced responsibilities and uncertain compensation following her breast cancer diagnosis and return to work.

The court found that Evans was not obligated to accept the revised role as mitigation due to its ill-defined nature, uncertain compensation, and the potential for humiliation and loss of dignity.

The court set the reasonable notice period at 11 months and awarded damages for lost salary, performance bonuses, and shareholder bonuses during this period.

The plaintiff's claim for bad faith in the historical calculation of bonuses was rejected, as the employer's compensation process was found to be fair and reasonable.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim order that imputed an annual income of $75,000 to him and ordered him to pay increased child and spousal support.

The applicant argued the motions judge imputed income without regard to documentary evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motions judge was entitled to draw inferences from the applicant's lifestyle and expenses, and that the applicant failed to establish a conflicting decision or a matter of general importance.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The applicant husband had been voluntarily paying $430 per month in child support based on a declared income of $46,538.

The wife sought to impute an income of $75,000 to the husband, arguing his lifestyle and business interests indicated higher earnings.

The court found a prima facie case for support, imputed the husband's income at $75,000 for the purpose of the interim motion, and ordered him to pay $682 per month in child support and $471 per month in spousal support.

Following a successful trial judgment in a contract dispute involving a loan advanced for the purchase of household contents, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to allegations of fraud raised by the opposing parties.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the unproven allegations of fraud did not justify elevated costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the event and be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

Considering fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, and the manner in which the litigation was conducted, the court awarded the successful party $28,967 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff sued to recover $80,000 loaned to the defendants to finance their purchase of household contents, including Feng Shui stones, from the plaintiff when they purchased her home.

The defendants alleged the contract was invalid due to misrepresentation about the value of certain stones and argued that a fiduciary relationship existed arising from the plaintiff’s role as a Feng Shui advisor and fortune teller.

The court held that no fiduciary relationship existed and found no fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation regarding the stones’ value.

The transaction was a commercial sale of all household contents on an “as is” basis for a lump sum price, which the defendants knowingly accepted and partially performed by paying interest for four years.

The defendants breached the contract by refusing to repay the principal and final interest payment when the loan matured.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The revocation was based on the appellant's criminal conviction for sexual assault against an employee and his failure to disclose his interest in a property management business on his renewal applications for over a decade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the appellant's character and the necessity of revocation to protect the public were reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action arose from a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The court applied a contextual approach, finding that the plaintiff adequately explained the litigation delay, which was partly due to issues identifying the vehicle's owner and the defendants' delay in delivering pleadings.

The court accepted that the failure to set the action down was due to counsel's inadvertence, the motion was brought reasonably promptly, and the defendants did not suffer significant prejudice.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted.

The appellants, a real estate broker and her corporation, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the broker, along with her partners, deliberately misled an investor regarding the purchase price and value of development lands to secure financing while retaining a disproportionate equity share.

The Tribunal also found that the broker provided false answers on her registration renewal applications by failing to disclose her involvement in the development business.

Concluding that the broker failed to accept responsibility and that her conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations of both the broker and her corporation.

The Applicant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The Registrar alleged the Applicant engaged in three fraudulent property transactions in 2008, involving double-dealing, inflating property prices to assist purchasers in obtaining higher mortgage financing, and breaching his fiduciary duties to his clients for personal gain.

The Applicant admitted the misconduct but sought a suspension with conditions, including a non-binding condition to pay restitution, rather than revocation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to order restitution and concluded that the serious nature of the Applicant's misconduct, which included orchestrating sophisticated schemes to defraud clients and lenders, overshadowed mitigating factors such as his remorse, psychological counseling, and support from his broker.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the Applicant's registration.

The defendant lottery authority brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action in which the plaintiff alleged he was deprived of a $1 million instant lottery prize after leaving a purported winning ticket with a retailer clerk.

The plaintiff asserted breach of contract against the lottery authority and discontinued claims against the retailer defendants.

The court held that under the rules of the lottery game, a claimant must present the winning ticket to claim a prize and that a lost or stolen ticket is void unless the authority exercises its discretion to accept it.

The authority had conducted investigations and reasonably declined to exercise that discretion, and there was no evidence supporting the allegation that the retailer stole a winning ticket.

In any event, the action was statute‑barred under the applicable limitation periods.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.