Jordan Bryan Goldblatt

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant insurer wrongfully deprived insureds of trip cancellation benefits by offering non-monetary compensation such as credits or vouchers.

On consent, the court certified a single threshold common issue regarding the interpretation of the travel insurance policy and dismissed the claim against the parent bank.

The court found that certifying a single threshold common issue, with the possibility of further common issues later, was an efficient procedure akin to a Rule 21 motion.

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.

Following a trial where the plaintiff employer was awarded $537,885 in compensatory damages for an employee's fraudulent kickback scheme, the plaintiff sought supplementary orders for a constructive trust over the employee's property and punitive damages.

The court granted a constructive trust, finding a direct link between the stolen funds and the property, but stayed the order for 30 days to allow the defendant to pay the judgment.

The court also awarded $200,000 in punitive damages, emphasizing the need for deterrence and denunciation of employee theft.

The applicant, an immigration lawyer, sought judicial review of Legal Aid Ontario's decision to remove him from its immigration and refugee panel due to billing irregularities.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair because he was denied an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision maker's reliance on admitted billing errors to establish a pattern of violations was reasonable.

The court also held that the administrative nature of the decision and the statutory scheme did not require an oral hearing, as the decision was based on admitted facts rather than credibility findings.

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 applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a city council decision and an integrity commissioner's report finding he engaged in sexual misconduct and obstructed an investigation.

The integrity commissioner recommended, and the city council imposed, a 90-day suspension of pay, a formal reprimand, and other remedial actions.

The Divisional Court upheld the integrity commissioner's findings and process, finding no breach of procedural fairness and that the investigation was properly commenced.

The court upheld most of the remedial actions imposed by the city council but quashed one measure that restricted the councillor to communicating with the public solely via his city email address, finding it overly broad and unreasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The defendant employer initially terminated the plaintiff for cause but later withdrew the allegation, relying instead on a without cause termination provision in her employment agreement.

The court found the termination provision void for lack of consideration and held that the employer's conduct—including creating a toxic workplace, suspending her, and making unfounded cause allegations—amounted to a repudiation of the contract.

The court awarded 11 months' reasonable notice, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Kurz J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,150 to the respondent.

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.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's affidavit evidence due to misconduct during a virtual cross-examination.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's wife and son were in the room off-camera, coaching the respondent with hand and facial gestures.

The court accepted the evidence of the independent interpreter, who confirmed the presence and coaching by the family members.

Finding this to be a deliberate abuse of process that tainted the entire testimony, the court struck the respondent's affidavit.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against the developers of a cancelled pre-construction condominium project, alleging breach of contract and bad faith in invoking an early termination condition.

Following a settlement meeting and document review, the parties agreed to a without-costs discontinuance.

The court approved the consent motion to discontinue the action under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the discontinuance would not prejudice the putative class members, who had not yet been notified of the proceeding and could still pursue individual claims before the expiry of the limitation period.

The parties attended a case conference to address the implementation of a prior order enforcing Letters of Request from a Florida court.

The court clarified that the prior order only applies to examinations conducted in Ontario, not to depositions held in Florida.

The court also ruled that the respondent's Ontario counsel is entitled to review documents generated by keyword searches for relevancy prior to production, provided they produce a log of all hits indicating their relevancy determinations.

At a case conference in a proposed class action regarding denied trip cancellation benefits due to COVID-19, the court determined the sequencing of a proposed Rule 21 motion by the defendant bank and the plaintiff's certification motion.

The court held that hearing the Rule 21 motion prior to certification would not substantially narrow the issues, as the substantive claims against the co-defendant insurer would remain identical.

Exercising its discretion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court ordered the Rule 21 motion to be heard at the same time as the certification motion.

The appellant brought a motion before a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a single judge's decision denying permission to file a factum of at least 125 pages.

The panel found that the motion judge carefully considered the request and identified the relevant considerations.

Finding no reason to interfere, the panel dismissed the motion and ordered the appellant to file its factum within 30 days, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction to restrain the plaintiffs/defendants to the counterclaim from publishing defamatory statements and images on Instagram and other internet platforms, and from contacting them.

The court found that the moving parties met the stringent test for an interlocutory injunction in a defamation context, noting the extensive and vitriolic nature of the posts, which included threats and the improper use of information obtained through ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva orders.

The motion was granted.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for a real estate commission after a mini-trial, the defendants sought costs.

The defendants had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for $10,000, which the plaintiff rejected.

The court found that the plaintiff's decision to proceed to trial despite the clear evidence and the settlement offer justified the costs claimed.

The court awarded the defendants $143,931.31 in costs, representing partial indemnity up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding the enforcement of letters of request, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought costs, with one respondent relying on offers to settle the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered all parties to bear their own costs, noting that the underlying litigation in Florida was ongoing and that Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure generally does not apply to appeals.

The court found this was not a rare occasion where an offer to settle an appeal should be taken into account.

The defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim) brought an urgent motion for interim injunctive relief to stop the plaintiffs and their principals from engaging in a relentless campaign of online harassment and defamation via Instagram.

The dispute originated from a failed transaction involving luxury handbags and watches, which previously led to ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders against the defendants.

The court found that the principals of the plaintiff corporation had posted highly defamatory statements, threats, and images obtained from the execution of the court orders.

Applying the stringent test for defamation injunctions, the court granted the requested relief, ordering the removal of the posts and restraining further contact and publication.

The appellant appealed an order giving effect to two Letters of Request from a Florida court in a defamation and conspiracy action regarding a hate mail campaign.

The appellant, an Ontario resident, argued his evidence was otherwise obtainable, the requests were unduly burdensome, lacked specificity, and resulted from a flawed foreign process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's application of the Friction Division factors and his conclusion that the evidence was relevant, necessary, and not otherwise obtainable.