Jordan Bryan Goldblatt

The plaintiffs sought to further extend a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a multi-million dollar fraud.

Defendant Yahya Dikeni Hashiru, director of Spotless Consultancy Inc., moved to vacate or vary the injunction, claiming he was merely a middleman facilitating a legitimate investment.

The court found Mr. Hashiru's explanation lacked credibility, particularly given his transfers of funds after being aware of the injunction.

Applying the five-step test for a Mareva injunction, the court found a strong prima facie case against Mr. Hashiru and a clear risk of asset dissipation.

The Mareva injunction was extended until further order of the court, and Mr. Hashiru's motion to vacate or vary was dismissed.

The court dismissed two motions seeking to consolidate other proceedings with a main action scheduled for trial.

The first motion, brought by the defendants, sought to consolidate the main action with a separate claim against former employees for breach of fiduciary duty (the "Brampton action").

The second motion, brought by 320 Bronte Road Inc., sought to consolidate its newly commenced action (alleging misconduct by the plaintiffs) and the Brampton action with the main proceeding.

The court found that the issues in the various proceedings were distinct, and consolidation would cause significant delays to the fixed trial date.

It concluded that any theoretical benefits of judicial economy or avoiding inconsistent findings were outweighed by the practical concerns of delay and managing unwieldy, disparate claims.

The court also criticized 320 Bronte Road Inc. for failing to follow proper Commercial List scheduling protocols.

The appellant, RE/MAX Realtron Realty Inc., appealed the dismissal of its claim for commission on a property sale.

The trial judge, in a mini-trial ordered during a summary judgment motion, found that two numbered companies involved in the transaction were distinct corporate entities, and the corporate veil could not be pierced.

Consequently, the holdover clause in the initial purchase agreement did not apply to the subsequent sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding corporate distinctness, the application of the corporate veil test, or the absence of wrongdoing.

The court also upheld the substantial costs award against the appellant, noting its rejection of settlement offers.

This trial decision addresses a claim by Sunwing Airlines Inc. against a former employee, Amilcar Mora, alleging his involvement in a kickback scheme.

Sunwing contended that Mora received over $500,000 in kickbacks from a Cuban contractor, Sylvie Leduc, between 2012 and 2017.

Mora denied the allegations and brought a wrongful dismissal counterclaim.

The court primarily focused on witness credibility, finding Sunwing's witnesses credible and Mora and a co-defendant, Sonya Sekulic, not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimony and documentary evidence.

The court found that Mora was involved in the kickback scheme and that Sunwing had just cause for his termination.

The appellant, OZ Merchandising Inc., appealed the dismissal of its action for negligence and intentional interference with economic interests against several soccer associations.

It also sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that OZ Merchandising failed to prove duty of care, breach, or damages for negligence, and failed to prove intent, unlawful act, or damages for intentional interference.

The court also dismissed allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias (personal, institutional, and ethnic).

Leave to appeal the costs order was granted, but the costs appeal was also dismissed, affirming the substantial indemnity costs awarded against OZ Merchandising and personal costs against its president, Mr. Sezerman, due to his control over the litigation and egregious conduct.

The plaintiff sought declarations of interest and sale of four properties, alleging a "Property Venture" agreement.

The defendants denied this, asserting a "Commission Agreement" where property advances were compensation for business referrals.

The court found a 20% commission agreement existed, not the "Property Venture." It dismissed the plaintiff's claims for interest and rectification of title on two properties (Aloma and 2580 Property) and denied the sale of the Olive Property (due to corporate ownership not being a party).

It ordered the sale of the 2824 Property, where the plaintiff already held 50% title.

The defendant's counterclaim for damages based on a later "May 2017 Note" was also dismissed due to lack of evidence of referred work and uncertainty of terms.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an application to enforce two Letters of Request from a Florida court, directed at David Smith.

The underlying dispute involved allegations of a hate mail campaign orchestrated by Isaac Perlmutter against Harold Peerenboom, with David Smith allegedly involved.

All parties (Isaac and Laura Perlmutter, Harold Peerenboom, and David Smith) sought costs for the Canadian application.

The court found it impossible to meaningfully decide the issue of costs without knowing the ultimate results of the two related Florida actions, as the success or failure of the allegations would significantly impact the entitlement to costs.

Given the ongoing litigation and the direct interest of all parties in the outcome, the court ruled that each party should bear its own costs.

This endorsement arises from a case conference concerning two wrongful dismissal claims.

The plaintiff, Sonya Sekulic, sought to compel the defendant, Sunwing Airlines, to comply with an outstanding undertaking from an examination for discovery, specifically to provide contact information for two former employees (Patrick Heinke and Gordon Kenny) who were directly involved in the dismissal events.

The defendant resisted, citing professional conduct rules and the individuals' desire for privacy.

The court ruled that the unqualified undertaking must be complied with, as the individuals possessed relevant information and might be called as witnesses.

The court dismissed the defendant's arguments regarding professional conduct rules.

The defendant was ordered to provide the contact information, provide translations of documents, and pay the plaintiff costs for the undertakings motion.

Cricket Canada brought an application under section 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, to challenge the jurisdiction of the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) and its appointed arbitrator.

The underlying dispute involved the Alberta Cricket Council (ACC) seeking membership in Cricket Canada, which Cricket Canada argued was outside the SDRCC's jurisdiction.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the SDRCC had jurisdiction over the dispute, interpreting "Sports-Related Dispute" broadly to include disputes among sport organizations concerning participation and membership entitlements.

The applicant and three respondents sought a declaration that the respondent 2180366 Ontario Limited (218) failed to properly exercise a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) contained in a Partnership Agreement, which would permit the sale of shares from Parmantid Inc. to the applicant. 218 contended its exercise of the ROFR was unequivocal despite reserving certain rights.

The court found 218's exercise of the ROFR valid, determining that the reservation of rights was not a renegotiation of the purchase price but merely notice of a potential future entitlement, such as claims for unjust enrichment or set-off related to undisclosed liabilities.

Consequently, the Share Purchase Agreement between the applicant and the vendors became null and void.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to 218 against the applicant and the other respondents.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order, raising two grounds: an alleged error in granting an adjournment for cross-examination, and an alleged error in balancing competing interests under s. 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's discretion regarding the adjournment and the balancing of interests, and clarifying the interpretation of the 60-day time limit for hearing motions under s. 137.2(2).

The plaintiff, OZ Merchandising Inc., sought to defer the determination of costs following the dismissal of its claims against the Eastern Ontario District Soccer Association (EODSA), The Ontario Soccer Association (OSA), and the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA).

The plaintiff also argued for a Bullock or Sanderson order and partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's requests, finding no basis to defer costs pending appeal or resolution of claims against other defendants.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful defendants from the date of their offers to settle, citing the plaintiff's egregious litigation conduct and the pursuit of unfounded allegations.

Additionally, the court found Omur Sezerman, a non-party, jointly and severally liable with the plaintiff for the trial costs due to his direct control over counsel and conduct undermining the administration of justice.

On appeal from a motion judge's decision, the Court of Appeal considered whether real estate sales commissions collected by a receiver of an insolvent brokerage firm constitute trust funds for the real estate salespersons who effected the sales, or form part of the assets available to creditors.

The motion judge found no trust existed, concluding that certainty of intention to create a trust had not been established.

The appellants (agents and their insurer) challenged this conclusion on two bases: that the motion judge erred in attaching significance to evidence weighing against a trust, and that he failed to attach sufficient significance to evidence supporting a trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in his weighing of evidence.

The court affirmed that formal trust agreements are not required for an implied trust to arise, but the absence of such provisions in the agent agreements, combined with financial statements showing commissions as assets rather than trust funds, supported the conclusion that no trust was intended.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for repayment of loans and a declaration of an equitable lien.

The plaintiff argued that communications in 2010 created an equitable mortgage or lien, or alternatively, that he was entitled to relief based on unjust enrichment, constructive trust, or promissory estoppel, which would invoke a 10-year limitation period.

The court found that the 2010 communications lacked the necessary detail and certainty to establish an equitable mortgage or lien, and that the plaintiff's decision to discharge the prior mortgage despite legal advice meant he assumed the risk of the debt being unsecured.

The court also rejected claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and promissory estoppel, finding a juristic reason for the benefit (promissory notes) and no clear agreement for a new mortgage.

Consequently, most of the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, except for a separate $12,000 loan made in 2015.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for real estate commission, intentional interference with economic relations, conspiracy, and breach of good faith.

The plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants used two corporate entities as alter egos to avoid paying commission on a property sale by structuring a second transaction after the first one failed.

The court found that the evidence regarding the corporate ownership structures and the defendants' intentionality in terminating the first agreement and entering the second was not definitively established on the record, raising genuine issues requiring a trial.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The defendants were, however, granted leave to amend their Statement of Defence.

The defendant, RBC Life Insurance Company, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Michael Scuglia, to attend an examination for discovery and cross-examination on an affidavit.

The plaintiff resisted, arguing that any form of examination would be harmful to his physical and mental health due to existing medical conditions, including a vascular malformation and conversion disorder.

The court reviewed medical evidence from both parties, finding the plaintiff's medical evidence unpersuasive regarding the risk of serious harm.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet the high onus to be relieved from discovery obligations and granted the defendant's motion, ordering the plaintiff to attend discovery and cross-examination with appropriate accommodations.

The Receiver of two insolvent real estate brokerages (TRP and TRP Realty) sought the court's advice and direction on whether approximately $3.7 million in commissions owed to the brokerages' agents were held in trust for the agents or formed part of the general assets available to secured creditors.

The court applied the "three certainties" test for a valid trust, focusing on certainty of intention.

Despite some ambiguous indicators like bank account names and standard form documents, the court found that the agents' contracts and the brokerages' audited financial statements did not objectively demonstrate an intention to create a trust.

Consequently, the commissions were deemed unsecured debts, not trust funds, and thus available to the secured creditors.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application under the Condominium Act challenging the respondent condominium corporation's requirement that she renovate her unit to a luxury standard as a condition of remaining in the hotel rental pool.

The appellant also objected to the removal of her unit from the pool when she refused the renovations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's dismissal, finding no oppressive conduct by the respondent and confirming that the appellant could not remain in the pool without meeting the luxury standard while having the option to rent or use the unit residentially.

The plaintiffs sought to maintain a Mareva injunction against the defendant's property after an ex parte order was granted.

The defendant had failed to close an agreement of purchase and sale for the plaintiffs' home, and the plaintiffs alleged a risk of asset flight.

The court conducted a de novo hearing, finding a strong prima facie case for the plaintiffs and a real risk of asset removal due to inconsistencies in the defendant's travel plans and financial explanations.

The Mareva injunction was maintained, allowing the plaintiffs to register a charge against the defendant's property, which could be lifted upon the defendant posting security of $116,324.32.

The moving defendants, subtenants of a medical facility, sought summary judgment to dismiss claims by the landlord for breach of contract and unlawful act conspiracy after they vacated the premises.

The landlord alleged the subtenants breached continuous operation covenants and conspired to harm the landlord by moving to new premises.

The court granted the landlord's motion to amend its claim to add two corporate subtenants.

However, the court found no privity of contract between the landlord and subtenants, and no applicable exception to the privity doctrine.

Furthermore, the court determined there was no evidence of unlawful conduct or intent directed towards the landlord to support the conspiracy claim.

Consequently, the subtenants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the landlord's claims against them were dismissed.