W.D. Black

The defendants by counterclaim (West Face Capital Inc., Gregory Boland, and Bruce Langstaff) moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the plaintiffs by counterclaim (The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Callidus Capital Corporation, and Newton Glassman) from removing assets from Ontario.

The moving parties alleged that Mr. Glassman was relocating to the Bahamas and dissipating assets to avoid potential judgments arising from a massive corporate espionage and defamation campaign.

The court found that while the moving parties established a strong prima facie case of deceitful and tortious conduct by Mr. Glassman, they failed to prove a real risk that assets were being removed with the specific intent to defeat creditors.

The court also found the moving parties delayed in bringing the motion and failed to establish irreparable harm.

The motions for a Mareva injunction were dismissed.

The applicant sought an interest in two properties based on constructive or resulting trust, an equalization of net family property, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant lacked credibility, had unclean hands, and failed to prove any contributions to the properties.

The court determined the date of separation was in April 2013, making the equalization claim time-barred under the Family Law Act.

The spousal support claim was also dismissed.

Despite the respondents' success, no costs were awarded because they had knowingly breached prior court orders regarding the properties.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement signed in December 2018, alleging financial coercion and lack of understanding.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement.

The court found that the applicant was intelligent, had received legal advice during negotiations, and understood the agreement.

The court upheld the separation agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, maintaining joint decision-making and equal parenting time, but added communication protocols and adjusted child support to $1,200 per month based on the respondent's updated income.

The applicant and respondent separated after a long marriage characterized by the respondent's controlling and abusive behaviour.

Following separation, the respondent engaged in a pattern of non-cooperation, including refusing to sign closing documents for the sale of the matrimonial home, withholding the children's passports, and acting belligerently towards police.

At trial, the court addressed issues of decision-making, parenting time, child and spousal support, and equalization.

The court granted the applicant final decision-making authority but allowed equal parenting time on a 5-5-2-2 schedule, strictly conditional on the respondent attending psychological counselling.

The court imputed income to both parties, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds, and ordered the remaining proceeds to be equalized without deduction for the respondent's tax arrears.

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The plaintiff/appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision refusing to grant a writ of possession for a residential property.

The respondent spouse, who was not on title but claimed rights under the Family Law Act, argued that ongoing enforcement proceedings regarding a second mortgage prevented her from redeeming the first mortgage.

The Superior Court found that the Associate Justice made a palpable and overriding error by conflating the first and second mortgages.

The court held that the spouse had received adequate notice and opportunity to redeem but failed to do so, and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession.

The landlord brought a motion for an interim order requiring the tenants to pay ongoing rent and outstanding arrears of $70,200 pending the final adjudication of the landlord's claim and the tenants' counterclaim for an abatement.

The tenants agreed to pay ongoing rent but argued they should not have to pay the arrears until the matter was resolved.

The court held that tenants are not entitled to unilaterally abate rent prior to a decision on the merits.

The court ordered the tenants to pay ongoing rent and to pay the arrears in six monthly instalments, with 50% of the payments to be held in trust by the landlord's counsel pending final determination.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay or dismiss the claim of one of the plaintiffs, who resided in Quebec, arguing that Quebec was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The plaintiffs, who were all Vice-Presidents of Business Development, brought an action in Ontario for unpaid vacation pay.

Applying the Van Breda factors, the court found that the majority of key witnesses were in Ontario and that separating the Quebec plaintiff's claim would create a risk of multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The motion was dismissed, as the defendant failed to show that Quebec was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to collect on a $500,000 promissory note.

The defendants failed to file responding materials on time, citing a conflict of interest and an internal corporate deadlock, and sought an adjournment on the eve of the motion.

The court refused the adjournment, finding the defendants' internal disputes did not constitute a defence to the debt, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff landlord brought an interim motion for the payment of rent pending the hearing of its action to evict the defendant tenants and recover arrears.

The self-represented tenants requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing severe respiratory illness supported by doctors' notes.

Despite concerns about the tenants' history of delay tactics, the court reluctantly granted a brief, peremptory adjournment, ordering the tenants to pay $4,006.00 in partial rent prior to the return date.

The applicant submitted the lowest bid for a municipal sewer and watermain project.

The City initially found the bid compliant but later disqualified it, concluding the applicant lacked the requisite corporate experience because its personnel's experience was gained at a different company.

The City then cancelled and reissued the tender.

The court found the applicant's bid was compliant, a Contract A was formed, and the City breached the contract by arbitrarily interpreting the experience requirements and cancelling the tender without a valid basis.

The court requested further submissions on the enforceability of a limitation of liability clause.

The plaintiff moved to strike numerous paragraphs of the defendants' statements of defence on the basis of res judicata or abuse of process, arguing the defendants were seeking to re-litigate findings made by the Mining and Lands Tribunal (MLT) regarding a hydroelectric dam approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned pleadings fairly responded to the plaintiff's allegations of delay and misfeasance.

Furthermore, the court held that the MLT decision was merely a recommendation to the Minister and not a final judicial decision capable of grounding res judicata.

The motion against the Independent Electricity System Operator was also dismissed as it was not a party to the MLT proceeding.

The defendants moved to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) granted ex parte to the plaintiff.

The CPL was registered on title to a property owned by the defendants.

The plaintiff's underlying claim alleged that the defendants fraudulently replaced his stepfather's will to divert estate proceeds.

The plaintiff sought the CPL because the property was the only known asset to satisfy a potential judgment.

The court granted the motion and discharged the CPL, holding that a CPL requires the proceeding to involve a triable interest in the land itself, which the plaintiff conceded he did not have.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement of $50,000 all-inclusive reached with the plaintiff's former counsel.

The plaintiff argued the settlement was based on a mistake due to a faulty translation by a paralegal during a phone call with his former counsel.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement was reached and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or injustice that would justify refusing to enforce it.

The motion was granted and the settlement was enforced.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for defamatory comments posted on Instagram, which falsely claimed the plaintiff was involved in violence against women.

The defendant failed to file a defence and was noted in default.

After multiple orders regarding service of the motion record, the defendant still did not respond.

The court granted default judgment, awarding $140,000 in damages for defamation and $1,413.11 in costs.

The TEC defendants brought a motion to admit evidence from the criminal trial of Christopher Husbands (who committed a mass shooting at the Eaton Centre) into the upcoming civil trial, and to strike the plaintiffs' jury notices.

The defendants argued the evidence was necessary to establish Husbands' mindset and the spontaneity of his actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Husbands' specific mindset and reasons for the shooting were not relevant to the core issue of whether the defendants breached their duty of care regarding security under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

As the criminal evidence was not admitted, the court also declined to strike the jury notices, finding that a jury is capable of handling the anticipated expert evidence on security standards.

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

The applicants, students at Seneca College, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of the college's mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.

They argued the policy violated their rights under sections 2(a), 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The court held that their objections were based on personal preference rather than a comprehensive moral code, and the policy did not force medical treatment but rather presented a choice with consequences.

The court also found no irreparable harm and held that the balance of convenience favored the public interest in health and safety.

The plaintiff, an Ontario wine agent, brought an action against the defendant, a New York-based wine distributor, for damages in lieu of reasonable notice following the unilateral termination of their 15-year unwritten agency relationship.

The defendant terminated the relationship without notice to consolidate its Canadian distribution with a single new agent.

The court found that the distributorship agreement was terminable only upon reasonable notice, rejecting the defendant's argument that no notice was required.

The court determined that a 15-month notice period was appropriate, considering the plaintiff's significant efforts in building the brand in Ontario, and awarded damages based on lost commissions and unpaid invoices.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment after noting the defendants in default in an action for investment fraud.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to set aside the noting in default.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in a concerted effort to delay the proceedings and failed to provide any substantive evidence of a meritorious defence.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default and granted default judgment to the plaintiffs, finding the primary individual defendant liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and the defendant lawyer liable for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.