Joseph Shiban Jebreen

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding property tax relief for a hotel undergoing demolition and renovation during the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

The applicant argued the Board erred by not considering relief under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for 2016, and by misinterpreting the demolition provisions for 2017.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no errors in the original decision, as no section 357 appeal was actually filed for 2016, and the demolition that rendered the property substantially unusable occurred prior to 2017.

The appellant company sought property tax relief for a hotel undergoing major renovations and rebranding in 2016 and 2017.

For 2016, the Board found it had no jurisdiction to consider a s. 357 appeal as none was filed, but granted a vacant unit rebate under s. 364 for the entire property from May to December, calculating the rebate based on the assessed value rather than a notional value.

For 2017, the Board found the property ineligible for relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) because the demolition occurred prior to 2017, and ineligible under s. 357(1)(g) due to the statutory exception for vacant unit rebate eligible properties.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a s. 364 rebate for 2017 as no such application was made.

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 self-represented appellant brought a motion to review a single judge's order requiring him to post $10,000 in security for costs for his pending appeal of a Small Claims Court decision.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant had insufficient assets to pay a costs award.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The respondents brought a motion for security for costs regarding the appellant's appeal of a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed most of his claims.

The appellant, a former director of a housing co-operative, sued the co-operative, its manager, former directors, and sector organizations after being removed from the board.

The Divisional Court found good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit.

Given the appellant's reliance on ODSP and unpaid prior costs awards, the court concluded he had insufficient assets.

Balancing access to justice against protecting the respondents from unmeritorious claims, the court ordered the appellant to post $10,000 in security for costs.

The moving party, Baybridge, brought a motion for an order permitting alternative service of a production motion on non-party property owners.

The underlying appeal was brought by the City of Toronto regarding the assessment of Baybridge's property.

Baybridge sought to compel MPAC to produce documents containing confidential information from other property owners of comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent, ordering that the production motion be served by registered mail to the last known mailing address on the roll, and by fax to the owner's representative if there are outstanding appeals.

The appellant, a member of a not-for-profit housing co-operative, appealed the dismissal of his application for the appointment of an inspector and a compliance order under the Co-operative Corporations Act.

He alleged a pattern of mismanagement by successive boards of directors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of mismanagement or malfeasance to warrant intervention.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as it related to issues not raised in the initial application.

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.

A franchisor appealed from summary judgment dismissing its claim against a corporation's sole officer, director, and shareholder after the corporation had been found liable for misappropriating funds remitted for payment of utility invoices.

The Court of Appeal held that the individual was not personally liable under the pre-incorporation contract provisions because the corporation had adopted the agreement by conduct, but he was personally liable because he expressly directed the wrongful diversion of funds and the corporate veil should be pierced under Ontario law.

The court upheld the use of summary judgment, rejected reliance on a transition release obtained in the face of material non-disclosure, and found no binding 2007 replacement contract.

Damages were varied downward to reflect conceded deductions and an additional admitted set-off, and appeal costs were awarded against the corporation and the individual jointly and severally.

Following earlier summary judgment and Rule 21 rulings, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

The plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the corporate defendant for misappropriated funds and successfully resisted the individual defendant’s Rule 21 motion challenging the pleadings, but failed on its claim against the individual defendant under Rule 20.

The court held that costs should follow the overall result and rejected the defendants’ argument that costs should be parsed according to individual legal arguments or sub‑issues.

Taking into account the plaintiff’s partial lack of success against the individual defendant, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The two defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the costs award.

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.