Kyle Christopher Armagon

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion against the respondent, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in pursuing a disclosure motion based on baseless allegations of misrepresentation under oath, and persisting despite offers to settle on a without-costs basis, was reprehensible.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs fixed at $37,000.

The appellants appealed a decision finding them liable for corporate oppression, removing them as directors, and ordering audited financial statements.

They challenged the application judge's refusal to order a winding up of the corporation and the award of substantial indemnity costs.

They also sought to raise a new limitation period defence regarding the financial statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the discretionary refusal to wind up the company or the costs award, and declined to hear the new limitation period argument due to an inadequate evidentiary record.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendant insurance company seeking payment of a remnant judgment balance of $353,520.92 under a Mortgage Brokers Errors and Omissions Liability Policy.

The plaintiffs had obtained a default judgment against a mortgage broker and related parties for misappropriating trust funds.

The court determined that while the policy contained a fraud endorsement, it was limited to coverage for failure to advance or secure mortgage funds.

Since the liability arose from failure to repay trust funds held in trust rather than from failure to advance mortgage funds, the fraud endorsement did not apply.

The general policy exclusions for intentional, dishonest, and fraudulent acts therefore removed all coverage, and the action was dismissed.

Horn Ventures International Inc. appealed the dismissal of its application to compel Xylem to sell it property, arguing that a binding agreement for sale was triggered by waiving a condition in an Offer to Lease.

The key issue was whether the "Obligation to Purchase" provision could be triggered before environmental remediation of the property was completed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation that the obligation to purchase arose only after Xylem advised that remediation was complete, and Horn Ventures could only waive the environmental consultant's certificate, not the completion of remediation itself.

The appeal was dismissed, as no reversible error was found in the application judge's contractual interpretation.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a Certificate of Pending Litigation against their property after they terminated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider a schedule requiring direct deposit, improperly considered their subjective intentions, and erroneously assessed the property's uniqueness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants could not raise the schedule interpretation for the first time on appeal, and that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the equities or the uniqueness of the property.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale was binding and an order for specific performance.

The commercial lease contained an obligation for the tenant to purchase the property once the landlord completed environmental remediation and provided a consultant's certificate.

The tenant attempted to trigger the purchase by waiving the requirement for the certificate, even though remediation was not complete.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract required the landlord to first advise that remediation was complete before the tenant could waive the certificate.

The court also held that while the provision was not a true condition precedent, it benefited both parties and could not be unilaterally waived by the tenant.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the moving parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) after the defendants terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants claimed the agreement was terminated because the plaintiffs failed to provide a certified cheque for the deposit, though the agreement only required a 'negotiable cheque'.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a reasonable claim to an interest in the land, noting the property's unique feature of abutting a public park.

Concluding that the defendants likely repudiated the agreement to seek a higher purchase price in a rising market, the court held that the equities strongly favoured the plaintiffs and granted the CPL.

The third party in an equipment rental dispute brought three preliminary motions before trial: to permanently stay the third party claim due to late disclosure of an alleged Mary Carter agreement, to permit calling an expert witness, and to permit cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness despite not defending the main action.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the agreed statement of facts was disclosed in a timely manner.

The court allowed the motions to call the expert witness and to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, finding interference with the expert's retainer and relevance of the plaintiff's evidence to the third party's defence.

The appellant, Xylem Canada Company, appealed an application judge's order declaring that an obligation to purchase, set out in a 1996 lease, remained in effect through subsequent lease renewals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the contractual documents.

The court reiterated that contractual interpretation involves issues of mixed fact and law, entitling the application judge's decision to deference.

The appellants' counsel failed to appear for the appeal hearing, and an associate later advised the court that counsel had no instructions to proceed due to an inability to communicate with the appellants.

The respondent requested the appeal be dismissed with fixed costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal with costs of $6,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, as requested by the respondent.

The plaintiffs loaned $25,000 to the individual defendant's corporation based on a long-standing friendship.

When the loan was not repaid, the plaintiffs sued the corporation and the individual defendant.

The defendants failed to attend the trial.

The court found that the individual defendant had personally guaranteed the loan to protect his own interest in the corporation, taking the guarantee out of the Statute of Frauds.

Judgment was granted against both defendants for the principal amount plus interest and costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for survivor pension benefits following the death of Michael Shestowsky, a former employee of the respondent.

The appellant claimed entitlement to survivor benefits as a "spouse" under the Pension Benefits Act, which requires living together in a conjugal relationship for at least three years before retirement.

The trial judge found the appellant was not an eligible spouse based on objective, contemporaneous evidence including a cohabitation agreement stating the parties intended to commence cohabiting, pension election forms confirming no eligible spouse, and tax returns.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the trial judge properly applied the law and his factual findings were amply supported by evidence.

The appellant, Onyx Corporation, appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully terminated an oral subcontract with the respondent, S & J Gareri Trucking Ltd., for snow removal services.

The trial judge found the oral subcontract was for a five-season term, mirroring the appellant's main contract with the municipality, rather than a season-by-season term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct principles for interpreting oral contracts and made no error in assessing damages based on expected revenues less mitigation.

The appellant law firm appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent, its former legal assistant, $32,500 for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in proceeding by summary judgment and in finding the respondent reasonably mitigated her damages when she declined a new employment offer following a firm merger.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the new employment terms were sufficiently negative to justify the respondent's refusal.

Two subcontractors sued a prime contractor for breach of oral contracts relating to a municipal winter road maintenance contract.

The plaintiffs alleged their arrangements to supply trucks and operators were for the same five‑season duration as the contractor’s agreement with the municipality, while the defendant argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court held that the parties’ conduct, including deposits corresponding to the five‑year municipal contract and payment structures flowing from that contract, objectively demonstrated fixed‑term agreements.

The defendant’s termination after one season constituted breach of contract.

Damages representing lost profits for the remaining four seasons, subject to mitigation, were awarded.

Two plaintiffs brought motions for summary judgment in related actions alleging breach of oral contracts for the provision of equipment and personnel for municipal snow removal services.

The plaintiffs asserted that the agreements were fixed‑term contracts for five years that were prematurely terminated, while the defendants argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court found the evidentiary record contained significant conflicts regarding the formation and terms of the alleged oral agreements, the circumstances of termination, and issues of damages and mitigation.

Questions of credibility and potential personal liability of corporate principals also required factual assessment.

The court held that these genuine issues for trial made the actions unsuitable for summary judgment.

Appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing a claim for damages arising from a power of sale transaction.

The appellant, a second mortgagee, alleged that the first mortgagee conducted an improvident sale by transferring the property for $175,000 without listing it on the open market.

The trial judge accepted the appraisal evidence supporting the sale price and rejected market valuation opinions from real estate agents and an appraisal where the author did not testify.

The court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appraised value represented the market value and that the mortgagee acted in good faith.

The appellant failed to provide cogent evidence that a higher price would have been obtained but for any alleged breach.

The plaintiff corporation, a publisher of trade magazines for the wood industry, brought an action against its former officer and shareholder for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in a shareholders agreement.

After the defendant's shares were bought out, he engaged in consulting work for various wood industry associations.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the consulting work did not constitute 'ancillary and related activities' to the plaintiff's magazine publishing business, and the defendant did not solicit the plaintiff's advertising clients or compete in the Canadian magazine marketplace.

The plaintiffs sought damages following a violent assault that occurred outside a bar where the primary plaintiff was attacked by three individuals and sustained significant physical and psychological injuries.

Evidence established ongoing medical complications including concussion symptoms, psychological trauma, and employment loss.

Family members advanced claims under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship arising from the injuries.

Following an assessment hearing on damages, the court awarded general and punitive damages to the injured plaintiff and derivative damages to family members.

Costs were also awarded on a partial indemnity basis.