Douglas Levitt

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against her investment advisors and related corporations, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, breach of contract, and oppression in relation to the sale of promissory notes.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims did not satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court held that the existence of a fiduciary duty and any breach thereof would require individualized assessments, and that the secondary claims for knowing assistance and knowing receipt were similarly flawed and lacked a basis in fact.

This case management endorsement addresses an appeal by a self-represented tenant against an eviction order, where the tenant had not paid rent for two years, claiming the unit was uninhabitable.

The court balanced the interests of the parties, allowing the landlord to re-enter and take possession of the unit, while providing the tenant a deadline to remove personal property.

The landlord was prohibited from re-leasing the premises pending further court order, and a future case management teleconference was scheduled to set a schedule for the appeal and consider interim payments or re-leasing restrictions.

The court clarified that the tenant's intention to seek a review or stay did not automatically stay the order.

The successful defendants on a summary judgment motion sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, who were the responding parties to the costs motion, argued for no costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity with substantial reductions.

The court found no reason to depart from the usual rule that successful parties should be awarded costs.

However, it determined that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted as the plaintiffs' action, while unsuccessful, was not devoid of merit.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, and fixed the all-inclusive amount at $50,000, a reduction from the $72,128.46 partial indemnity initially claimed.

The plaintiffs, owners of a fitness club, sued the defendants for alleged misrepresentations regarding the availability of parking spaces and for failing to provide adequate alternative parking during construction.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the misrepresentation claims were barred by the 'four corners' clause in the lease agreement, the releases signed by the parties, and the expiry of the two-year limitation period, as there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment.

The court also found no triable issue regarding the alternative parking, as the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that membership cancellations were linked to parking issues.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving defendants were dismissed.

The applicant trucking company sought to terminate a factoring agreement with the respondent and requested a buy-out statement, a release letter, and the discharge of a PPSA registration.

The respondent refused, arguing it owned the purchased invoices absolutely and had no obligation to sell them back.

The court held that the PPSA applied to the transaction and, pursuant to section 56, the applicant was entitled to pay the outstanding obligations and have the registration discharged.

The court ordered the respondent to provide the buy-out statement and, upon payment, release the customers and discharge the PPSA registration.

Following a decision on cross-motions where the appellant was permitted to remain in her home provided she paid rent to the respondent, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had achieved divided success, as the appellant remained in the home and the respondent received rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

The appellant brought a motion to stay her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute a collateral attack on the Board's order.

However, the court granted the appellant a six-month extension to perfect her appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments of $1,675 to the respondent in trust.