Julia Toso

The plaintiff, Nanny & Eldercare Services Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, Walsh Business & Tax Management Ltd. and Andrew Walsh, for misappropriation of $318,278.18 in funds intended for Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) remittances.

The defendants failed to file a statement of defence and were noted in default.

The court found the defendants liable for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty based on deemed admissions.

The judgment, totaling $441,863.26, was declared to survive any future bankruptcy under section 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act due to the fraudulent misappropriation of funds while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

The court also awarded $75,000 in punitive damages and full indemnity costs of $29,363.96 due to the egregious and high-handed conduct of the defendants, including their consistent lies to the court and failure to comply with multiple production orders.

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.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff subcontractor against the defendant general contractor, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff had made a settlement offer that it beat at the hearing, entitling it to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the simplified procedure costs cap applied, noting the parties had engaged in a hybrid process outside of Rule 76.

The plaintiff was awarded total costs of $62,659.28.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices totaling $103,650.53 and for breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The court granted summary judgment for the outstanding debt, rejecting the defendant's argument that a 'pay when paid' progressive payment model applied, as the contract clearly stated payment was due 30 days after invoicing.

The court adjourned the breach of trust claim to a case conference, noting the plaintiff could not establish the absence of a genuine issue for trial because the defendant had failed to provide a full accounting of trust funds.

This endorsement concerns a costs decision following the dismissal of motions brought by the plaintiff, MDG Newmarket Inc., for consolidation and payment out of court.

The defendant, John Ernest Bechard, was fully successful in resisting these motions and was presumptively entitled to costs.

The parties could not agree on costs, leading to written submissions.

The court considered factors such as the defendant's complete success, the technical nature of the jurisdiction issue, the defendant's need for assistance due to language challenges and lack of internet access, the absence of materials filed by the defendant on the motion, the requirement for a lawyer for costs submissions, and the lack of a detailed cost outline.

The court also noted the tactical and non-resolution-oriented nature of the plaintiff's original motions.

Costs were fixed at $750.00 inclusive, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

MDG Newmarket Inc. (OEG) brought a motion seeking to consolidate a 2015 Small Claims Court action initiated by John Bechard against OEG with a 2016 Superior Court of Justice action initiated by OEG against Bechard.

OEG also sought an order for payment out of court of funds garnished from OEG and held in the Small Claims Court.

The court dismissed both parts of OEG's motion.

Consolidation was denied because Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to proceedings in the same court, and section 107 of the Courts of Justice Act requires the Small Claims Court plaintiff's consent for transfer, which Bechard did not provide.

The request for payment out of court was dismissed due to the Superior Court's lack of jurisdiction to order the release of funds held pursuant to an order from a different level and region of court.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for $25,000 in damages plus costs for breaching a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) with the respondent real estate brokerage.

The appellants argued the trial judge made several factual and legal errors, including finding the BRA enforceable despite their claim that it was not adequately explained.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants understood the BRA, deliberately bypassed the respondent to avoid paying commission, and engaged in unreasonable conduct warranting elevated costs.

The plaintiff agreed to purchase a residential property from the defendant.

Before closing, a fire damaged the property.

The defendant, whose insurance did not cover repairs due to vacancy, undertook repairs.

The plaintiff, a structural engineer, expressed concerns about the extent of the damage, the quality of repairs, and the lack of disclosure, and was denied the opportunity to inspect the damage before repairs.

The plaintiff ultimately refused to close the transaction due to unsatisfactory disclosure.

The defendant claimed anticipatory breach and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found that the defendant breached the agreement of purchase and sale by failing to provide the plaintiff a timely and meaningful opportunity to inspect the damage and by not acting in good faith in addressing the plaintiff's concerns.

The damage was deemed 'substantial' despite repair costs being a small percentage of the purchase price, as the quality, character, and consequences of the damage must also be considered.

The plaintiff's action for the return of his deposit was allowed, and the defendant's counterclaim for damages was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a committal order made at a preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the arguments advanced confused the function of a trial judge with that of a preliminary inquiry judge.

The Superior Court judge properly limited his review to whether the totality of the evidence provided a basis for the committal order.