S. Vella

The plaintiff, a second mortgagee, sought a declaration that an amended first mortgage held by the defendant was unenforceable against it due to alleged fraud.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant concealed increased interest rates and a U.S. dollar conversion clause when it took assignment of the first mortgage.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of civil fraud or that the defendant wrongfully concealed the terms.

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the amended first mortgage was held to maintain priority.

The applicant sought an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent to transfer title to the matrimonial home, and determining the adjustments to the purchase price.

The court found that the Minutes waived post-separation adjustments prior to the settlement date, but allowed post-Minutes adjustments for HELOC and mortgage default costs.

The court ordered the transfer of title upon payment of an agreed amount into trust, and directed a reference to an Associate Justice to determine the remaining disputed adjustments.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a 2/2/5/5 shared parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The applicant mother opposed and brought a cross-motion for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the eldest child was exhibiting emotional and behavioural issues following the separation, and there were documented concerns from the Children's Aid Society regarding the father's behaviour.

Applying the Glick factors, the court concluded a section 30 assessment was in the children's best interests and ordered the father to pay the upfront costs.

The father's motion for a shared parenting schedule was dismissed, with leave to renew after the assessment, though the interim schedule was slightly modified to reduce transitions.

The respondent mother brought a motion in the Superior Court of Justice to enforce child support and section 7 expenses provisions of a separation agreement that had been filed with the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce or vary a final order of the Ontario Court of Justice arising from section 35 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant's cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding was transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing he was the sole beneficial owner under a resulting trust because he purchased the property with his inheritance.

The court found that while the resulting trust claim raised a genuine issue for trial, it was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act because more than ten years had passed since the parties separated.

The court ordered the sale of the property, finding it would not be oppressive as the property was at risk of foreclosure and the net proceeds would be held in trust with an initial advance to both parties.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' 12-year-old child continue to reside primarily with her in Etobicoke and attend his current school.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking to relocate the child to Kitchener to live with him and attend a new school, relying on a prior agreement between the parties.

The court found that the mother had previously consented to the relocation and school change before unilaterally withdrawing her consent.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, and considering the Voice of the Child Report which indicated the child's preference to move, the court granted the father's cross-motion and ordered the child to relocate to Kitchener.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside the child support provisions of the parties' Minutes of Settlement, or alternatively the entire agreement, alleging the applicant father failed to disclose significant assets and income.

The father consented to setting aside the child support and section 7 expenses provisions.

The court declined to set aside the entire agreement on a motion, finding genuine issues of fact regarding financial disclosure that require a trial.

The court ordered temporary child support based on the father's agreed income, leaving the issue of imputing income and retroactive support for trial.

The plaintiff and defendant were neighbours in a condominium building.

The plaintiff made numerous complaints about excessive noise and marijuana smoke emanating from the defendant's unit.

The defendant experienced vandalism to her door and reported the plaintiff to the police, resulting in the plaintiff's arrest for mischief, though charges were later stayed.

The plaintiff sued for malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, harassment, and nuisance.

The court dismissed all claims except private nuisance, finding the defendant's excessive noise constituted a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her unit.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in general damages.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the defendant, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, in civil contempt of two prior court orders regarding a disputed family home.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of constructive trust, resulting trust, and abuse.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the specific terms of the first order due to illiteracy in English and her former counsel's failure to inform her, and declined to exercise its discretion to find contempt on the second order.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, concluding that the intertwined issues of property ownership, alleged gifts, and historical abuse presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

The moving party brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from rendering a final audit decision that could recommend the revocation of its charitable status.

The moving party alleged the audit was tainted by Islamophobia and violated its Charter rights.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm because the CRA had not yet made a final decision, making the anticipated harm premature and speculative.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the CRA due to the public interest in its regulatory role, and the moving party failed to meet the high threshold for a quia timet injunction.

The plaintiffs sought coverage under their commercial property insurance policies for a wall collapse and a subsequent arson fire that destroyed their heritage building.

The insurer denied coverage for both claims, relying on wear and tear exclusions for the wall collapse and a vacancy exclusion for the fire.

The court dismissed the wall collapse claim, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove it was caused by a fortuitous event.

However, the court granted the fire loss claim, holding that the insurer's unilateral amendments to the policy were void under s. 124 of the Insurance Act and that the insurer was estopped from relying on the vacancy exclusion because it renewed the policy and accepted increased premiums with full knowledge that the building was vacant.

The plaintiffs were awarded over $5.8 million in damages.

A concurrent negligence claim against the plaintiffs' insurance brokers was dismissed.

The defendant process server brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged fraud, conspiracy, negligence, and breach of contract arising from allegedly forged affidavits of service and fraudulent billing.

The court struck the breach of contract and negligence claims without leave to amend, finding no privity of contract and no tenable duty of care owed by the defendant in his capacity as a commissioner of oaths.

The fraud and conspiracy claims were struck with leave to amend, as the plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite material facts and elements with specificity.

Inflammatory paragraphs were also struck.

The defendant airline brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims under Rule 21.01, arguing the claims were governed exclusively by the Montreal Convention as damages for 'delay'.

The plaintiffs had been denied boarding on an international flight because the airline mistakenly alleged one plaintiff's passport was stolen.

The court denied the airline's request to file evidentiary documents, as they were not incorporated into the statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claims constituted 'delay' rather than 'non-performance' of the contract of carriage, which falls outside the Montreal Convention.

The applicant brought a garnishment hearing to enforce a 2011 Quebec family law judgment against the respondent.

The applicant sought to reduce the statutory wage exemption under the Wages Act, hold the garnishee companies liable for the full judgment debt, and compel further corporate productions.

The court reduced the respondent's wage exemption from 80 percent to 60 percent due to his conduct in evading payment.

The court also ordered one garnishee company to pay 40 percent of management fees it had paid to the respondent's alter ego corporation.

The court declined to hold the garnishee companies liable for the full debt, finding they had not concealed income or filed void statements, but ordered limited documentary production regarding the respondent's shares in a holding company.

The moving party, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., sought to set aside previous orders dismissing its motion for security for costs against the responding party, Active Security and Cable Inc., on the basis of fraud or newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Rogers alleged that an erroneous payment of over $876,000 and other newly discovered facts regarding Active Security's financial status warranted setting aside the orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence would not have likely altered the original decision, which relied primarily on a large CRA debt.

Furthermore, Rogers failed to prove fraudulent concealment and had made a tactical decision not to raise the new evidence during the appeal process.

The applicants sought a declaration and mandatory order requiring the respondent minority shareholder to complete a share purchase transaction pursuant to a Shareholders' Agreement.

The respondent argued the applicants repudiated the agreement by failing to comply with the valuation process, specifically by unilaterally appointing real estate appraisers and instructing accountants to alter financial statements to exclude a settlement payment.

The court found the applicants fundamentally breached the agreement's valuation provisions, depriving the respondent of the bargained-for process.

The application was dismissed, allowing the respondent to remain a minority shareholder.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause by the defendant.

The court found the matter suitable for summary judgment.

Applying Waksdale, the court held the entire termination clause was void because the 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act by contracting out of minimum statutory entitlements.

The court awarded a five-month reasonable notice period, finding the plaintiff reasonably mitigated his damages by securing new employment, and calculated damages for base salary, commissions, and benefits, while denying lost pension contributions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant repudiated an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendant conceded liability but argued the plaintiff failed to adequately mitigate his damages by not leaving the property on the market longer.

The court found the plaintiff acted reasonably in relying on his real estate agent's advice, relisting the property, and accepting a subsequent offer that represented fair market value.

Summary judgment was granted for the shortfall in the purchase price plus carrying costs.

The applicant, a 1% tenant in common and co-mortgagor, brought an application for the partition and sale of a residential property.

The applicant had agreed to co-sign the mortgage to assist the respondent in closing the purchase, on the condition that the respondent would promptly refinance or sell the property.

After 13 months of inaction by the respondent, the applicant's own financial circumstances were severely compromised.

The court denied the respondent's late request for an adjournment and granted the application, ordering the sale of the property under the Partition Act and directing a reference to an associate judge.