Jonathan Piccin

The appellant brokerage brought an action against the respondent brokerage, a salesperson, and the listing brokerage over entitlement to a real estate commission.

The appellant claimed it was the co-operating brokerage because the salesperson who purchased the home was its employee at the time.

The TRREB arbitration panel dismissed the claim, finding the salesperson purchased in his personal capacity through the respondent brokerage.

The motion judge dismissed the court action on jurisdictional grounds and abuse of process, finding the matter had been fully adjudicated through TRREB arbitration and issue estoppel applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the motion judge correctly applied the Danyluk test and the TRREB Arbitration Guidelines conferred exclusive jurisdiction over commission disputes.

The applicant, a land developer, sought an order requiring the respondents to remove encroachments from the applicant's property in Vaughan, Ontario.

The encroachments included a concrete retaining wall, a wooden retaining wall, and metal fence posts that crossed the property line.

The respondents requested an adjournment pending a consolidation motion with a separate action.

The court declined the adjournment and proceeded with the application.

The court found that the encroachments constituted trespass and were not de minimis.

The court granted a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the concrete retaining wall, wooden retaining wall, and metal fence posts within 45 days, with permission for the applicant to remove them at the respondents' cost if they failed to comply.

The court considered a motion by Salerno Realty Inc., Brokerage to dismiss Intercity Realty Inc., Brokerage’s action for breach of contract and commission entitlement, on the basis that the matter had already been determined by arbitration under the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) process.

The court found that its jurisdiction was ousted by the TRREB Arbitration Guidelines, which required members to submit commission disputes to arbitration.

The court also found that issue estoppel applied, as the issues had been fully adjudicated in arbitration, and dismissed the action against Salerno.

The decision did not affect Intercity’s claim against the defendant Mr. Cardwell.

The applicant landlord sought to terminate a commercial lease and obtain vacant possession due to the respondent tenant's non-payment of rent, failure to maintain insurance, and unauthorized residential use of the premises.

The tenant, who operated a martial arts studio, had been forced to close due to COVID-19 provincial orders and paid only 25% of the rent.

The court declined to grant the landlord's application, finding that the default was clearly related to the global pandemic and government-mandated shutdown.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to grant the tenant relief from forfeiture, conditional upon the tenant providing proof of insurance and ceasing residential use within ten days.

The defendant construction management firm moved under s. 44(5) of the Construction Lien Act to reduce the security it posted to vacate the plaintiff subcontractor's lien.

The parties' contract stipulated that payment was conditional on certification by an authorized engineer.

The engineer certified that the plaintiff had been overpaid, and the plaintiff provided no evidence of bad faith or fraud by the certifier.

The court held that the certifier's decision was binding and reduced the security from over $500,000 to $24,000, accounting only for unpaid holdbacks and HST.

Following a successful urgent motion by the tenant for relief from forfeiture and a declaration of unlawful lease termination during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The court awarded the tenant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $150,000, finding the landlord's conduct in terminating the lease and immediately re-leasing the premises to be reprehensible and high-handed.

The court declined to order costs against the landlord's principal personally but allowed the tenant to set off the costs award against future rent.

The plaintiff tenants brought a motion for an injunction after being locked out of their commercial premises by the landlord defendants for non-payment of rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the landlord had agreed to accept April rent in installments and subsequently demanded future rent, thereby waiving its right of forfeiture.

The court declared the termination of the lease unlawful, ordered the lease reinstated, and noted that even if the termination had been lawful, relief from forfeiture would have been granted given the unprecedented pandemic circumstances and the landlord's conduct.

The Armor defendants brought a motion to consolidate a construction lien action (Pentad v. Armor defendants) with a related bond action (Armor v. Echelon Insurance), and to transfer the bond action from Toronto to Newmarket.

The court found that while the actions shared common questions of law and fact, consolidation was not appropriate due to limitations under the Construction Lien Act, which applied to the lien action and restricted the consolidation of lien and non-lien actions and the addition of third-party defendants by counterclaim.

Instead, the court ordered the bond action to be transferred to Newmarket and both actions to be heard at the same time or one immediately after the other, with common discoveries, to avoid inconsistent findings.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining to approve the sale of property (79 Bramsteele Road, Brampton, Ontario) by a court-appointed receiver to the appellant.

The property was owned by a religious charitable organization that became insolvent.

The receiver entered into an agreement to sell the property to the appellant, but the motion judge declined approval, instead establishing a process to permit assignment of the first mortgage held by the respondent mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in applying the second Soundair duty by failing to properly consider the interests of creditors and the appellant as purchaser.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to direct the registration of a tax deed, the successful responding parties sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued that the costs awarded should be limited to the amount of its own legal costs in bringing the application, relying on the principle that the unsuccessful party's costs can indicate the parties' expectations.

The court rejected this argument, noting that the application posed a significant financial risk to the responding parties, justifying their higher costs.

The court fixed costs at $22,000 for the municipality and $11,000 for the mortgagee.

The applicant, 2494044 Ontario Inc., sought an order directing Norfolk County to register a tax deed for a commercial property after being the highest tenderer in a tax sale.

The County cancelled the tax sale after the previous mortgagee paid the outstanding taxes.

The court found that the County Treasurer acted reasonably in exercising discretion under section 382(6)(a) of the Municipal Act to cancel the tax sale, as it was not in the municipality's financial interest to continue.

The application was dismissed, affirming the Treasurer's decision.

The applicant daughter moved for an order for directions under Rule 75.06 to challenge her deceased father's holograph will, which disinherited her and her brother in favour of his second wife.

The respondent wife opposed, arguing the applicant lacked a financial interest and sufficient evidence of suspicious circumstances.

The court found the applicant had a potential financial interest on intestacy and presented sufficient evidence—including the testator's brain cancer, psychiatric issues, and the will's vitriolic language—to support an inference of suspicious circumstances.

The court granted the order for directions and appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation.