Kenneth Radnoff

This litigation arose from a failed real estate deal between a developer (applicant) and property owners (respondents).

The applicant sought summary judgment for unjust enrichment and breach of a 2013 agreement of purchase and sale (APS), while the respondents sought partial summary judgment on their counterclaim and dismissal of the applicant's claims.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding a valid contract constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

However, the court found the respondents breached the 2013 APS by refusing to close, rejecting their argument that a subsequent 2015 conditional APS nullified prior rights.

Damages for breach of contract and the respondents' counterclaim were deemed unsuitable for summary judgment due to incomplete records and interconnectedness.

The applicant's motion to amend its reply and defence to counterclaim was granted.

The court also strongly condemned the respondents' counsel's misconduct during a witness examination.

The plaintiffs, corporate vehicle dealerships, sued the defendants for conversion, fraud, and conspiracy after a rogue wholesaler fraudulently sold 23 of the plaintiffs' vehicles to the defendant dealership, Sami's Garage.

The vehicles were categorized as missing/stolen, consigned, and stop-payment vehicles.

The court found that the missing vehicles were stolen, meaning the rogue wholesaler could not pass good title, rendering Sami's Garage liable in conversion for those vehicles.

However, for the consigned and stop-payment vehicles, the court held that the rogue wholesaler acted as a mercantile agent with ostensible authority.

Because Sami's Garage purchased these vehicles in good faith and without notice of the defective title, it acquired good title under the Sale of Goods Act and the Factors Act.

The plaintiffs' claims regarding the consigned and stop-payment vehicles were dismissed against Sami's Garage, though the rogue wholesaler and his associate were held liable.

This appeal concerns the management of Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 396 following a 35-day trial.

The trial judge found that the director engaged in oppressive conduct including self-dealing, lack of financial disclosure, charging personal legal fees to the corporation, failing to declare conflicts, refusing to produce court-ordered records, and implementing an invalid by-law.

The trial judge ordered termination of the condominium corporation, declared the director's oppressive conduct, held the director personally liable for costs, and awarded common expense arrears to the corporation.

The appellants challenged the oppression finding, personal liability, and termination order.

The respondents cross-appealed the timing of arrears payment and the cost award against them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the oppression finding and termination order, confirmed personal liability for the director, and modified the cost award.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, interim disbursements for expert fees, and financial disclosure.

The parties were married for 40 years but maintained separate finances, with the respondent acquiring significant wealth through inheritance late in the marriage.

The court dismissed the claims for interim spousal support, finding no prima facie case for entitlement given the lack of financial dependency.

The court also dismissed the request for the immediate sale of the home and interim disbursements, but granted a limited order for financial disclosure.

The minority unit owners of a commercial condominium brought an action against the majority unit owner, who also served as a director and officer, alleging oppressive conduct under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The majority owner used his voting control to direct condominium contracts and payments to a related corporation, ETRE, without declaring his conflict of interest, and charged the condominium for personal litigation and construction costs.

The court found the majority owner's conduct to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and in breach of his fiduciary duties.

Due to the structural fault in the condominium's voting rights and the ongoing deadlock, the court ordered the termination of the condominium corporation under s. 128 and appointed a receiver to sell the assets.

The court also resolved various financial claims, ordering the minority to pay common expense arrears while dismissing most of the majority owner's claims for penalty charges, promissory notes, and time charges.

The applicant sought a declaration that Property Assessment Change Notices issued for the 2012 and 2013 taxation years were invalid.

The notices added the value of a newly constructed hotel to the property assessment, resulting in significant additional municipal and education taxes.

The applicant argued the assessment corporation could only issue revised assessments where an omission was inadvertent and not where the property was deliberately excluded.

The court held that the governing statute permits reassessment where property has been omitted from the tax roll regardless of the reason for the omission.

The court found the hotel had been omitted due to negligence, error, inadvertence or mistake and upheld the validity of the revised assessments.

The moving parties sought summary judgment in a shareholder oppression dispute involving a closely held home-building corporation, requesting dissolution, appointment of a receiver, and related declaratory relief.

The court held that the longstanding informal manner in which the corporation had operated formed part of the parties' reasonable expectations and that the impugned conduct, including deferred and retroactive salary payments, did not amount to oppression on the record before it.

The court found that one alleged director had not been validly elected, but that his conduct nevertheless did not constitute oppressive conduct.

Applying Rule 20 and the summary judgment framework, the court denied summary judgment, determined several factual and legal issues, remained seized, and directed further steps toward salary determinations, valuation, and a possible buyout or liquidation if no buyout occurred.

During a case conference concerning an anticipated motion for summary judgment, the moving parties had previously scheduled a hearing date but faced objections from the responding parties, who indicated they intended to bring cross-motions and anticipated a possible appeal.

At the conference convened to determine whether the motion would proceed, the moving parties advised the court that they would not proceed with the summary judgment motion in light of those objections.

The court also addressed trial management matters, confirming that the presiding judge for the conference was scheduled to act as the trial judge for the upcoming trial.

One responding party indicated it would seek instructions regarding that arrangement.

At a case conference prior to a scheduled civil trial, the court addressed whether issues relating to condominium fee arrears owed by certain unit owner plaintiffs to the condominium corporation would fall within the scope of the upcoming trial.

The pleadings raised the validity and amount of arrears, including fees, penalties, charges, and interest for a lengthy historical period.

The parties confirmed that the trial judge would have jurisdiction to determine the validity and quantum of any arrears and to award judgment in favour of the condominium corporation against the relevant unit owners.

No party opposed inclusion of these issues in the trial.

The court directed that the identified matters form part of the trial issues to be determined.

Following the dismissal of appeals and motions for leave to appeal regarding the appointment of a trustee for an inter vivos trust, the successful parties sought their costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the normal loser-pays regime applied to the appeals, rather than costs being paid out of the estate, as the uncertainty regarding the trust's administration had been resolved by the application judge.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful beneficiaries and full indemnity costs to the trustee, payable jointly and severally by the appellants.

The Children's Lawyer and other appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to appoint an independent trustee for an inter vivos spousal trust.

The appellants alleged that the respondents, who were directors of the corporation wholly owned by the trust, committed a breach of trust by declaring dividends in excess of net income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents' actions as directors were governed by the Business Corporations Act, not the trust agreement, and did not constitute a breach of trust.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence and upheld the application judge's order that costs be paid out of the estate.

The plaintiffs and the court-appointed Administrator brought motions to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action.

The defendant had obtained the dismissal order ex parte on December 31, 2012, relying on a prior endorsement that required the action to be set down by December 29, 2012.

However, the defendant failed to disclose to the Registrar that the court had subsequently extended the deadline to February 28, 2013.

The court found that the defendant's failure to disclose the extension constituted a material misstatement and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The dismissal order was set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The appellant tenant appealed a summary judgment decision that found it had not validly exercised its lease renewal option.

The motion judge concluded that the parties' conduct did not amount to a waiver of the notice requirement and that post-deadline negotiations were for a new lease, not a renewal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the record supported the motion judge's conclusions and that the landlord did not act in bad faith by considering other tenant options.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful defamation action in which the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defamatory statements alleged dishonesty, fraud, and untrustworthiness and were disseminated by email to numerous recipients.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate where unfounded allegations of fraud and dishonesty seriously prejudicial to reputation were advanced and maintained in pleadings.

However, the court found the amount claimed excessive given modest damages and potential duplication of work between senior and junior counsel.

Costs were fixed at a fair and reasonable all‑inclusive amount.

The defendant sought costs following a motion to settle the powers and duties of an interim condominium administrator appointed years earlier without clearly defined authority.

The court reviewed the extent of the defendant’s participation and the value of the submissions, noting that many proposed drafting changes were stylistic rather than substantive and that the administrator had not taken an unreasonable position.

The plaintiffs neither filed materials nor attended the motion, and the administrator had acted pursuant to the court’s direction to clarify the mandate.

The court held that no basis existed for costs beyond partial indemnity.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the moving party in the cause, payable by the condominium corporation depending on the outcome of the underlying action.

The defendants sought summary judgment dismissing an action by a commercial tenant alleging that the landlord waived a lease provision requiring written notice to exercise a renewal option.

The tenant conceded that it failed to deliver written notice within the contractual deadline but argued that continued negotiations constituted waiver or estoppel.

The court held that negotiations regarding a possible new lease did not amount to a clear, explicit, and unequivocal exercise of the renewal option and did not establish waiver by the landlord.

The court further held that there was no independent tort duty requiring the landlord’s leasing agent to negotiate reasonably or in good faith.

Finding the matter entirely document-driven with no genuine issue requiring trial, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff furniture retailer brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action arising from an email circulated by the defendant accusing the business of dishonesty and urging recipients to avoid it.

The defendant raised the defence of fair comment and advanced a counterclaim for slander based on communications made by the plaintiff to her employer and father.

The court held that the email was defamatory and that the defence of fair comment was unavailable because the statements were not on a matter of public interest, were not based on proven facts, and were motivated by malice.

The court concluded that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial and that summary judgment was appropriate.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff with damages fixed at $15,000 and the defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.

The respondents were completely successful on an appeal, an application for judicial review, and an application to set aside an arbitrator's decision.

They sought partial indemnity costs of $22,651 plus disbursements and HST.

The applicants argued the amount was disproportionate and opposed joint and several liability.

The court fixed costs at $20,000 plus $1,000 in disbursements plus HST, payable jointly and severally by the applicants, noting the complexity of the proceedings and the arbitrator's finding that the applicants had committed the tort of deceit together.

The applicants sought to appeal and judicially review an arbitrator's decision finding them personally liable for the tort of deceit in a real estate venture.

They argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over them personally as they had not signed the arbitration agreement in their personal capacities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the applicants had agreed to arbitration by their conduct, including obtaining a prior court order referring the claims to arbitration, and had waived any jurisdictional objections by participating without complaint.

The court also held that judicial review is unavailable for private commercial arbitrations and that the arbitration agreement's 'final and binding' clause precluded any appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they breached a consulting agreement by playing both ends against the middle and preventing Royal Trust from advancing funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the pleadings and evidence, and the appellants could not rely on the failure to advance funds when they were instrumental in bringing about that result.