Joseph W. Irving

The plaintiff was entirely successful at a five-day trial for specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of land and sought partial indemnity costs of $164,698.14.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive due to over-lawyering and suggested $70,000.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principles from Apotex, reducing the legal fees to account for duplication but allowing time for an articling student who managed documents during the virtual trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in fees plus $19,120.98 in disbursements, plus HST.

The plaintiff purchaser brought an action for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase a 32-acre property from the defendant owner.

The parties had negotiated an all-cash deal for $4.1 million, with the purchaser paying a $200,000 broker commission.

The owner later refused to close the transaction, arguing there was no binding agreement and relying on the Statute of Frauds.

The Superior Court of Justice found that a binding oral agreement was reached on all essential terms.

The court held that the doctrine of part performance applied, taking the agreement outside the Statute of Frauds, as both parties had engaged in acts unequivocally referable to the land.

Finding the property unique due to its contiguity with the purchaser's existing land, the court ordered specific performance.

This endorsement addresses the costs of Renata Mielczarek's motion for a further inspection by a Court-appointed Supervisor in an oppression remedy application.

The Applicant achieved substantial success in her motion, which sought to quantify appropriate compensation for oppression.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale against the Respondents (excluding Birwa Rashid), finding that the underlying oppression, coupled with the respondents' obstructive conduct and contribution to delays, justified a higher scale of costs.

The court also affirmed that the self-represented applicant's claimed hourly rate and time spent were reasonable and proportional.

The applicant, Aleksandra Mielczarek, sought an expansion of a court-appointed supervisor's mandate to conduct an on-site monitoring of the respondent companies' financial activities.

This was to verify cash sales and address discrepancies in financial reporting for the purpose of valuing shares in an ongoing oppression remedy application under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents did not oppose the monitoring but argued the applicant should bear the costs.

The court found the additional investigation necessary and reasonable given the nature of the business (restaurant/banquet hall with high cash transactions) and prior issues with financial transparency.

The court ordered the respondents to retain the supervisor for a four-week on-site monitoring period and to bear all associated costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion brought by the Mielczarek parties to consolidate their oppression applications with an action commenced by Daria Sulaiman.

The court had previously ordered the consolidation and directed that the proceedings be tried together.

The Mielczarek parties, who were self-represented, sought costs.

The court found them entitled to costs, noting the respondents' unreasonable conduct in the motion and their efforts to segregate the actions.

The court fixed costs at $7,901.33, including fees and disbursements, after making some deductions for time spent on unrelated matters and for their dual role as witnesses and advocates.

The court emphasized that self-represented litigants are entitled to costs that reflect the objectives of a costs order and are proportional to the interests at stake.

This decision addresses the appropriate penalty for Cosimo “Cosmo” Polidoro, who was found liable for six additional counts of civil contempt for his continuing failure to comply with court orders and undertakings in two separate actions involving fraudulent real estate transactions.

Polidoro had previously been found liable for eight counts of civil contempt and sentenced to incarceration.

The court also determined the plaintiffs' entitlement to and quantum of punitive damages for the frauds perpetrated by Polidoro.

The court found Polidoro's conduct to be egregious, involving repeated lies and evasion, and imposed a six-month custodial sentence, to be served concurrently with existing intermittent sentences.

Additionally, Polidoro was ordered to pay $25,000 in punitive damages to each set of plaintiffs (Boroni and Macaes) and $95,000 in costs to the Boroni Plaintiffs.

This endorsement arises from a pre-trial conference in an action and counterclaim concerning a sub-licensing agreement.

The court, having previously dissolved an injunction and set a timetable, addressed the plaintiff's non-compliance with the established schedule.

The judge modified the timetable, ordering the plaintiff to serve and file a defence to the counterclaim and an Affidavit of Documents by October 1, 2018, and complete discoveries by December 1, 2018.

The court explicitly warned that failure to meet the October 1st deadlines would entitle the defendants to move for dismissal of the action and granting of the counterclaim due to delay.

The trial date remained unchanged, and the court noted an outstanding costs award needing prompt payment.

A further pre-trial was scheduled.

The offender, a disbarred lawyer with a prior criminal record for fraud and similar offences in the United States, was convicted of four counts of providing unlicensed immigration advice and one count of counselling misrepresentation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's sophisticated, profit-driven scheme that preyed on vulnerable immigrants and undermined the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years imprisonment, reduced to 5 years after applying credit for pre-sentence custody, along with full restitution orders for the victims.

The Landlord brought a summary judgment motion to terminate the lease of Michele’s Italian Ristorante Inc. due to multiple breaches, including non-payment of rent, failure to remedy fire code deficiencies, and unsatisfactory breakfast service.

Ristorante brought a cross-motion for relief from forfeiture and lease renewal, alleging the Landlord caused its cash flow problems.

The court granted the Landlord's motion, finding Ristorante's breaches serious and deliberate, and dismissed Ristorante's action and cross-motion, concluding there were no grounds for equitable relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff sold a restaurant business to the defendant father, who negotiated the purchase and signed the agreement.

The father later stopped making payments, leaving a balance of $30,000.

The plaintiff sued the father, his son, and the son's corporation for the balance.

The court found that the father acted on his own behalf and did not have ostensible authority to bind his son or the corporation, dismissing the claims against them.

The father was ordered to pay the outstanding balance, subject to a $4,500 set-off for a leased dishwasher that the plaintiff had misrepresented as an owned asset.

The Crown applied for the forfeiture of personal property bearing the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC) insignia seized from the residences of individual members and the Toronto clubhouse, arguing it was offence-related property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The individual respondents had been convicted of various drug trafficking offences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while membership in the HAMC facilitated the drug transactions by providing a trustworthy network, the physical items bearing the insignia were not used to commit the offences, nor was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were intended to be used for such purposes.