Joseph Romano DeLuca

The applicant, Nicholas Rizkallah, sought various capacity assessments of the respondent, Michel George Rizkallah, including an interRAI Home Care assessment and assessments regarding Michel’s ability to grant/revoke a power of attorney, make a will, and instruct counsel.

The court declined to order the requested assessments, finding that the evidence did not justify further intrusion, that Michel’s wishes and preferences were sufficiently before the court, and that the assessments were not necessary to decide the issues on the application.

The court emphasized the role of s. 3 counsel under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and the importance of respecting the dignity and legal rights of vulnerable persons.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff condominium corporation's action, which included claims for unpaid common fees, an underfunded reserve fund, and breach of an oral contract regarding legal fees.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims for unpaid common fees (due to being statute-barred under the Limitations Act) and the oral contract for legal fees (finding no binding agreement due to lack of consensus and consideration).

However, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed for the claim regarding the underfunded reserve fund, as the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial and confirmed the condominium corporation's standing to pursue this claim on behalf of unit-owners.

This decision concerns the costs awarded following a successful motion by Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious.

The court fixed costs at $25,603.51, payable by the plaintiff to Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. delayed in bringing the motion and that the plaintiff's impecuniosity warranted a significant reduction in costs.

The court applied Rule 49.10, awarding Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. partial indemnity costs up to its offer to settle date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, finding its "walk-away" offer to be a valid compromise in the context of a motion to strike.

The defendant Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it without leave to amend.

The plaintiff alleged that his identity was stolen and used in a 'straw buy' of a luxury vehicle, and claimed Mercedes was liable in negligence, vicarious liability, and waiver of tort for the actions of its franchisee.

The court found that the statement of claim failed to plead material facts to support a duty of care, breach, causation, or compensable damages in negligence, nor did it support vicarious liability or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim against Mercedes without leave to amend and dismissed the action against it.

The applicant sought an order of possession for his property, which was initially expected to be unopposed by the respondent.

The respondent, who is the alleged complainant in criminal charges against the applicant, appeared unrepresented.

After amicus counsel was appointed for the respondent, the court expressed significant concerns about its jurisdiction to grant the order, the lack of a cited statutory or rule basis for the application, and the potential for civil proceedings, especially with costs sought, to intimidate an unrepresented complainant in a domestic/sexual assault case.

The court viewed such an application as potentially an "end run" around the criminal court's jurisdiction.

For these reasons, the court declined to make the requested order and adjourned the matter.