Kevin D. Sherkin

The appellant was employed under a five-year fixed-term contract and was terminated without cause after 23 months.

The motion judge found the early termination clause unenforceable and awarded common law reasonable notice damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where an employment contract is for a fixed term and lacks an enforceable early termination provision, the employee is entitled to the salary and benefits for the unexpired portion of the term.

Furthermore, the court held that there is no duty to mitigate damages arising from the early termination of a fixed-term contract.

The appellant, a second mortgagee on a matrimonial home, appealed a judgment denying its claim for additional funds and interest based on unregistered amending agreements.

The appellant argued its claim trumped that of an execution creditor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had previously admitted its security only applied to the registered principal amount and had taken an inconsistent position in a separate action.

The court also rejected the appellant's equitable mortgage argument and upheld the costs awards.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief, including constructive trust, and permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision on a matter of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their equitable claims.

A commercial landlord brought an application seeking interpretation of a lease and additional rent for a basement area occupied by the tenant’s assignee following insolvency proceedings.

The court examined the lease language, surrounding negotiations, and principles of contractual interpretation under Sattva.

It held that the basement was not part of the leased premises, but the lease rent was calculated on a per‑square‑foot basis.

The tenant’s assignee was therefore liable to pay rent for the basement based on the lease rate for its square footage from the date of assignment.

The landlord’s separate claim for rectification of the lease to reflect greater square footage of the upper floors was dismissed because the landlord had expressly waived the contractual right to remeasure the premises.

Following the dismissal of summary judgment motions in a dispute over the purchase of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel in Toronto, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged misconduct and their success on certain factual issues, or alternatively that the amount sought was excessive.

The court held that the litigation was not a case of divided success and that the plaintiffs ultimately failed on critical factual and legal elements of their claims.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair, reasonable, and within the expectations of the parties, the court awarded the successful defendants a reduced amount.

Costs of $58,000 inclusive were ordered.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to enforce a judgment under s. 258 of the Insurance Act against an insurer alleged to have issued a motor vehicle liability policy to the tortfeasor responsible for a catastrophic 1992 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs relied on circumstantial evidence, including an accident report listing a policy number, licence plate renewal applications, correspondence with insurers, and an affidavit from the tortfeasor’s daughter.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the tortfeasor held a motor vehicle liability policy with the alleged insurer at the time of the accident.

Because the existence of such a policy was not proven, the remaining issues concerning assumption of liability, limitation defences, and damages were unnecessary to determine.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Two purchasers of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel in Toronto brought test‑case summary judgment motions seeking rescission and damages based on alleged misrepresentations and an alleged breach of an Ontario Securities Commission prospectus‑exemption ruling.

The purchasers relied primarily on an “Estimated Return on Investment” document that allegedly overstated revenues and understated expenses.

The court found the document contained multiple misrepresentations but held the plaintiffs’ claims nevertheless failed because their reliance on the estimates was not objectively reasonable in light of extensive contractual disclaimers, disclosure documents, and risk warnings.

The court further held the defendants did not breach the OSC exemption ruling and that statutory securities and condominium misrepresentation provisions were not engaged.

One plaintiff’s claims were also statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants appealed an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her statement of claim in an occupier's liability action.

The defendants argued the amendment introduced a new cause of action outside the limitation period, making the order final.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the amendment merely alleged an alternative factual scenario for the fall and did not add a new cause of action.

As the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties, construction lien creditors of the Mady Group of Companies, brought a motion seeking to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings, amend their statements of claim, and obtain a Mareva injunction against several individuals and corporations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to make full and fair disclosure, failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud or breach of trust, and provided no evidence of a risk of dissipation or removal of assets from the jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order recognizing and enforcing a $3,000,000 California judgment against him in Ontario.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal to argue the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge's prior order refusing the evidence was not appealed.

The court found no reason to interfere with the motion judge's application of the Beals v. Saldanha test for recognizing foreign judgments.

The owner of a condominium construction project moved to reduce posted security and obtain summary judgment discharging or reducing a contractor’s construction lien claims.

The moving party argued the contractor’s liens should be eliminated or reduced because a subcontractor’s lien action had been dismissed, because contract prices allegedly contained PST eliminated by the introduction of HST, and because the owner paid $40,000 directly to a sub‑subcontractor.

The court held that dismissal of the subcontractor’s lien did not affect the contractor’s lien rights, as lien entitlement is based on the contract price between owner and contractor under the Construction Lien Act and not on the subcontractor’s separate claims.

The court also rejected the alleged PST credit due to insufficient evidence.

The motion succeeded only to the extent that the contractor’s liens and posted security were reduced by $40,000 corresponding to the direct payment to the sub‑subcontractor.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing its breach of contract action for delay at a status hearing under Rule 48.14(13).

The plaintiff had taken no steps to move the action forward for 26 months and provided no explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error in the application of the conjunctive test for dismissal, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate both an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

During a Commercial List case conference in a complex multi‑party commercial dispute, the court addressed ongoing discovery and production issues among numerous defendants and third parties.

The court directed timelines for outstanding undertakings and warned that unresolved production disputes would require formal motions before a Master.

The court emphasized counsel’s obligation to cooperate in resolving discovery issues and indicated that failure to do so could result in elevated or full indemnity costs.

Additional guidance was provided regarding potential motions for non‑party examinations and production of partnership financial statements.

The court scheduled a further case conference and noted that the matter would not proceed to trial as early as previously anticipated due to outstanding discovery issues.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision and the associated award of substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's findings of fact.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs, as the parties had not made submissions on costs and there was no basis for substantial indemnity costs.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Two related actions challenged a municipality’s expropriation of commercial land that formed part of a 1,000‑acre assembly for a vehicle manufacturing plant.

The plaintiffs argued that the municipality unlawfully expropriated the property and conferred an illegal “bonus” on a private manufacturer by transferring the land at the expropriation price rather than its alleged fair market value, contrary to s. 106 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The court held that the municipality had lawful authority to expropriate the land for valid public purposes related to economic development.

Applying the contextual approach to s. 106 adopted in Friends of Lansdowne Inc. v. Ottawa (City), the court concluded that the transaction did not confer an “obviously undue advantage” on the private enterprise.

Accordingly, the expropriation and subsequent transfer did not breach the statutory prohibition on municipal bonuses.

On a motion to quash, the court held it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal arising from a construction lien action in which the appellant's statement of defence and counterclaim had been struck and judgment was subsequently obtained.

The court treated the judgment below as a default judgment, for which the proper remedy was a motion to set aside rather than an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

It further held that any appeal from the master's final order striking the counterclaim lay to the Divisional Court under s. 19(1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, and that appeals from final orders in construction lien actions are statutorily directed to the Divisional Court under ss. 70 and 71 of the Construction Lien Act.

The appeal was struck and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a $500,000 promissory note and guarantee, arguing the action was barred by the limitation period and that the note should be treated as an advance on anticipated business profits rather than a loan.

The court held that, on the express terms of the note, the payee had a right but not an obligation to demand payment upon default, so the limitation period did not begin to run before the note’s maturity date.

The court also held that parol evidence could not be used to vary the terms of the promissory note.

The respondent’s cross-appeal seeking summary dismissal of the counterclaim as time-barred was also dismissed because the commencement of the limitation period for that claim remained a matter for trial.

The moving parties sought to quash the opposing parties’ attempt to revive and schedule a previously raised motion concerning an alleged breach of a Mareva injunction.

The earlier trial reasons and subsequent appellate decision left unresolved whether the injunction had been breached.

The court found that the trial judge had deferred the issue and that a later email from the trial judge declining to amend the judgment did not constitute a formal endorsement or order under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given the absence of a final adjudication and the lack of reasons, the issue remained open.

The court exercised its discretion to permit the matter to proceed so the alleged breach of the Mareva injunction could be determined.

During a Commercial List case management conference in a complex multi‑party securities and investment dispute, the court issued procedural directions governing ongoing litigation steps.

The court addressed the potential settlement motion involving certain defendants, confirmed the status of examinations for discovery, and ordered timelines for answering undertakings.

The judge provided structured options for handling refusals motions and warned that costs may be assessed per refusal to discourage unnecessary motions.

Additional directions were given regarding the timing of expert reports, a possible future summary judgment motion, and scheduling of the next case management conference.

Following the dismissal of a motion by the defendants to dissolve a Mareva injunction, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $22,170.43 inclusive of disbursements and HST, while the defendants argued the amount should be reduced to $15,000.

The court rejected the defendants’ criticisms of the time spent by plaintiffs’ counsel, noting the absence of comparative information about defence counsel hours and characterizing the challenge as unsupported.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that a costs award of $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST was appropriate.

The moving defendants were ordered to pay the amount within 30 days, failing which the receiver was authorized to pay the award and charge it to the receiver accounts.