Joseph Jebreen

The applicants brought an application under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

The respondent, a resident of the applicant co-operative, had initiated multiple overlapping and unsuccessful proceedings against the applicants over several years, accumulating unpaid costs orders.

The court found that the respondent's conduct was oppressive, intended for improper purposes, and consumed a disproportionate share of judicial resources.

The application was granted, and the respondent was prohibited from initiating or continuing proceedings without leave of the court.

The applicant, a charitable non-profit corporation, sought a declaration that its 40-unit apartment building for low-income seniors was exempt from municipal taxation under s. 3(1) para. 12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation opposed, arguing the applicant merely provided affordable housing rather than relieving poverty.

The court found that the term 'poor' is relative and not limited to the destitute.

Given the tenants' average and median incomes, which closely aligned with Statistics Canada's low-income cut-offs, the court concluded the residents were 'poor' within the meaning of the Act.

The application was allowed and the property was declared exempt from municipal taxation.

The plaintiff franchisor contracted with the corporate defendant to manage and pay utility bills for its stores.

Upon terminating the contract, the plaintiff transferred over $1.3 million to the corporate defendant to pay outstanding bills.

The corporate defendant misappropriated the funds, transferring them to its operating account instead of paying the utilities, and subsequently signed a mutual release without disclosing the misappropriation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for the return of the funds, and the personal defendant moved to dismiss the claims against him.

The court granted summary judgment against the corporate defendant, finding it was unjustly enriched and that the mutual release was vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation.

However, the court dismissed the claims against the personal defendant, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil.