Chris Argiropoulos

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a Deputy Judge.

The responding party requested that the moving party be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and declined to declare the moving party a vexatious litigant due to a lack of supporting submissions.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The court considered an application by Frank Iannace to set aside his late father's will, which disinherited him in favour of his brother, Peter Iannace.

Frank alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding undue influence, and granted certificates of pending litigation (CPL) and preservation orders over certain estate assets, but not over a property owned by a corporation.

The court also ordered disclosure and partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Fady Dawood, brought a motion for summary judgment against Popes Property Holdings Inc. (PPH) and Nicholas John Pope, alleging breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The defendants agreed the matter should be resolved by summary judgment and did not oppose judgment against PPH, but Pope sought reverse summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him personally.

The court found PPH liable for the plaintiff’s losses but dismissed the action against Pope, holding that PPH had properly adopted the contract after incorporation and that there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil or impose personal liability on Pope.

The appellant, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp., was defrauded in a factoring business scheme by WF Canada Ltd.'s principals.

Liquid Capital sued Frank Zito, an Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. employee, alleging his participation in the fraud, and sought to hold Enbridge vicariously liable.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding Liquid Capital had not proven Zito's involvement and, even if he was involved, Enbridge would not be vicariously liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no reversible error in refusing to find Zito liable and no error in the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal costs was denied.

The court-appointed Receiver of The Lion's Share Group Inc. (LS), a real estate investment company in insolvency, sought an order declaring certain promissory notes as valid charges on real property, requiring their registration, and expanding the receivership to include The Windrose Group Inc. The promissory notes, issued by LS to borrowers, included provisions for registration on title upon default, but the Land Registry Office required a court order.

Objecting noteholders requested an adjournment due to short service.

The court granted the Receiver's requests, finding the notes created equitable mortgages and that the matter was urgent due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The court also approved the expansion of the receivership and the Receiver's First Report, while providing a comeback hearing for affected parties to address any prejudice.

The appellant sought to purchase a residential property under an Option to Purchase Agreement or, alternatively, the return of a $25,000 downpayment.

She appealed the dismissal of her application by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Option Agreement had clearly expired by its terms, the appellant failed to establish a causal link between the respondent's alleged failure to provide rent receipts and her inability to secure mortgage financing, and the application judge did not err in declining to convert the application into an action.

The plaintiff, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp., sought damages for fraud against multiple defendants, including two individuals (Cook and Daoust) who created false invoices, and an Enbridge employee (Zito) and Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., alleging their involvement or vicarious liability.

The court found that Liquid Capital failed to prove Mr. Zito's participation in the fraud on a balance of probabilities, noting the plaintiff's significant lack of due diligence due to an misplaced trust in one of the fraudsters.

The court also determined that even if Mr. Zito had been involved, Enbridge would not be vicariously liable as Mr. Zito acted outside the scope of his employment and lacked the authority to approve such contracts or invoices.

The action against the defendants was dismissed.

The applicant sought to enforce an option to purchase agreement for a property or, alternatively, the return of a $25,000 down payment.

The respondent argued the option expired and the payment was forfeited.

The court found the option agreement had expired and was not renewed, and the respondent's failure to provide compliant rent receipts was not causally linked to the applicant's inability to secure financing.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture for the $12,000 in monthly credits, finding it unconscionable for the respondent to retain this amount given it exceeded the contract's cap, but allowed the respondent to retain the initial $13,000 option fee.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Krawchenko J. dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, 1350057 Ontario Ltd.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate defendant and its principal for defaulting on a small business loan and personal guarantee.

The defendants argued they did not receive independent legal advice and that the COVID-19 pandemic frustrated the contract, as their restaurant was forced to close.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no requirement for independent legal advice and holding that the pandemic did not render the repayment obligations radically different from what was originally agreed.

A judgment creditor brought a garnishment motion alleging that the garnishee and its principal knowingly contravened notices of garnishment by continuing to pay salary to a judgment debtor while falsely stating no employment relationship existed.

Evidence showed the garnishee entities continued paying the debtor for management services despite service of garnishment notices and filed inaccurate garnishee statements.

The court found the payments constituted wages subject to garnishment and that the garnishee ought to have remitted the statutory portion to the sheriff.

Given the deliberate misrepresentations and the integrated business structure, the court pierced the corporate veil to impose personal liability on the principal.

Judgment was granted for the garnishable portion of the wages together with interest and substantial indemnity costs.

Following a trial decision, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought $74,612.14 all-inclusive, relying in part on an offer to settle that triggered substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

One defendant conceded the entitlement to substantial indemnity costs from that date, while another provided no submissions on costs and a corporate defendant did not participate in the trial.

The court considered the conduct of the participating defendants, including late concessions that prolonged the trial and required unnecessary witnesses.

Balancing the relevant considerations, the court fixed the plaintiff’s costs at $65,000 all-inclusive against the individual defendants.

The plaintiff sought recovery of remediation costs paid to repair structural defects in a newly constructed home after the builder failed to fulfill warranty obligations.

The corporate builder and its principals had executed indemnification agreements requiring reimbursement of losses arising from warranty claims.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the indemnity cap for the individual defendants was $20,000 rather than $200,000.

The court held that limitation periods for indemnity claims run from the date the indemnifier actually pays out losses, not from when the underlying defect arises.

The action was therefore timely because the payments occurred in 2006 within two years of the claim issued in 2007.

The court further held the contract imposed an aggregate $200,000 indemnity cap for the individual defendants, not a per‑home limit.

The appellant appealed a default judgment ordering him to pay a lump sum spousal support award of $193,385, secured by a charge on his property, after his pleadings were struck for failing to fulfill undertakings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the application judge's order, particularly given the appellant's abusive behaviour, intention not to pay support, and probable non-compliance with court orders.

The appellant's basement flooded after a municipal culvert became blocked during a major storm.

The appellant sued the city for negligence, alleging inadequate inspection and maintenance.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the appellant failed to establish causation because the culvert likely became blocked during the storm itself.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation or damages and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant publisher appealed a trial judgment that rectified a publishing agreement due to mutual mistake and awarded damages and costs to the respondent societies.

The trial judge found the parties intended the contract's subscriber list requirement to include both institutional and individual subscribers, not just institutional ones.

The Court of Appeal upheld the rectification, finding the trial judge properly applied the test for mutual mistake.

The Court also granted leave to appeal the costs order but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's costs award was reasonable given the appellant's conduct and the complexity of the simplified procedure action.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent on a promissory note, share purchase agreement, and guarantee.

The appellants relied on an alleged collateral agreement as a defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of any collateral agreement in the record to justify looking behind the terms of the written documents.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the order under appeal was interlocutory and its character was unaffected by the passage of time.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the application judge erred in applying the Miglin test and that there was inadequate disclosure by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge properly applied the Miglin test.

The Court also held that the respondents made proper documentary disclosure, and the appellant's failure to review the documents or seek legal advice did not render the disclosure inadequate.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to allow late amendments to their pleadings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that while Rule 26.01 is generally mandatory unless prejudice cannot be compensated in costs, the proposed amendments in this case were untenable and tendered at the eleventh hour by a party forced to trial.