Emilio Bisceglia

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a second mortgage against the defendants' properties after a default.

The defendants argued that an oral agreement had been reached to extend the repayment time or allow payout upon the sale of the properties.

The court found no evidence of a meeting of the minds or consideration to support an oral agreement amending the mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding debt, interest, and possession of the properties.

The moving parties brought motions to quash appeals from an order authorizing a court-appointed Sales Officer to enter into agreements to separate joint venture interests in real estate projects as part of a corporate wind-up.

The Court of Appeal granted the motions to quash, finding that the order was interlocutory because it was a step in implementing the wind-up and sale process, not a final determination of substantive rights.

Furthermore, the Court held that the order was made pursuant to the Business Corporations Act, meaning any appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

The appellant property developer sued the respondent municipal councillor for defamation after she made a police complaint about him following an altercation.

The motion judge dismissed the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the action lacked substantial merit as the mere making of a police complaint that is closed without charges does not constitute defamation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant brokerage brought an action against the respondent brokerage, a salesperson, and the listing brokerage over entitlement to a real estate commission.

The appellant claimed it was the co-operating brokerage because the salesperson who purchased the home was its employee at the time.

The TRREB arbitration panel dismissed the claim, finding the salesperson purchased in his personal capacity through the respondent brokerage.

The motion judge dismissed the court action on jurisdictional grounds and abuse of process, finding the matter had been fully adjudicated through TRREB arbitration and issue estoppel applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the motion judge correctly applied the Danyluk test and the TRREB Arbitration Guidelines conferred exclusive jurisdiction over commission disputes.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a trial judgment, alleging the responding parties committed fraud by submitting false dump tickets for excavated soil.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of false representations, no evidence of loss, and no new material facts that could not have been discovered prior to trial.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the responding parties, noting the moving party's unfounded allegations of fraud and the lack of merit to the motion.

The applicant, husband of the deceased, sought an order compelling the respondents to answer refusals and provide better answers to undertakings given during cross-examinations in an estate application challenging a will and various transfers.

The applicant narrowed his motion to focus on communications-related refusals.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the broad, unlimited requests for all communications were not relevant and overly broad.

Where more limited requests had been made, the respondents had already provided substantive answers or produced documents where found.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents.

The court considered an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, brought by the defendant, a municipal councillor, to dismiss a multi-claim action by a developer shareholder.

The claims included defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with economic relations, champerty and maintenance, and misfeasance in public office.

The court found that the claims lacked substantial merit, were improperly pleaded, and largely belonged to the corporation, not the individual plaintiff.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting political expression and participation outweighed any interest in allowing the action to proceed.

The action was dismissed.

The court considered a claim by Country Wide Homes Upper Thornhill Estates Inc. against Xiaowan Liu for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a luxury home.

Liu failed to close the transaction, alleging language barriers and misrepresentation regarding environmental issues and a Certificate of Property Use (CPU).

The court found that Liu was an experienced purchaser, had the assistance of a real estate agent, and received all required disclosures, including the CPU.

The court held that the plaintiff met its disclosure obligations under the Environmental Protection Act and that Liu was liable for the shortfall on resale and carrying costs, totaling $741,999.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The court considered a motion by Salerno Realty Inc., Brokerage to dismiss Intercity Realty Inc., Brokerage’s action for breach of contract and commission entitlement, on the basis that the matter had already been determined by arbitration under the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) process.

The court found that its jurisdiction was ousted by the TRREB Arbitration Guidelines, which required members to submit commission disputes to arbitration.

The court also found that issue estoppel applied, as the issues had been fully adjudicated in arbitration, and dismissed the action against Salerno.

The decision did not affect Intercity’s claim against the defendant Mr. Cardwell.

This decision is an appeal by Alan Saskin from the order of Associate Justice Ilchenko, sitting as Registrar in Bankruptcy, refusing an absolute discharge and imposing conditions under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court reviews the procedural history, the evidence, and the legal standards for discharge, including the meaning of "moral blameworthiness" under s. 173(1)(a) and the duties of a bankrupt under s. 173(1)(o).

The appeal is dismissed, with the court finding no error in the Registrar's factual or legal conclusions.

The court considered costs following a trial in which the plaintiff, Domenic Gesualdi, succeeded in proving breach of contract and negligence against the defendants regarding the rebuilding of two vintage Ferrari engines.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiff at $300,000 and to the third parties at $279,950.91, rejecting the defendants’ arguments for costs in their favour and their attempt to shift third party costs to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the principles for fixing costs, including proportionality, reasonableness, and the impact of settlement offers.

The court found that the defendants breached their contract and were negligent in the restoration of the plaintiff's vintage Ferrari engines, resulting in significant damages.

The court dismissed the third party claim and awarded damages to the plaintiff for the cost of repairs, but denied claims for loss of capital value and other consequential damages.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $6,000.

The appellants sought a panel review of a single judge's decision dismissing their motion for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The underlying action against Dominion Lending Centres Inc. and others for alleged mortgage fraud was dismissed by the Superior Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the single judge dismissed the motion solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the single judge explicitly found the grounds of appeal devoid of merit and the lower court's reasons cogent.

The motion for panel review was dismissed with costs.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim in a real estate dispute.

The plaintiff sought to add claims related to a "Development Pause" and "Walk Away Offers" in a failed home purchase.

The court found the Development Pause amendments were statute-barred and dismissed them, but allowed amendments regarding the Walk Away Offers, as they were timely and not prima facie unmeritorious.

The court also ordered further document disclosure and permitted further discovery, deferring a decision on certain refusals.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The court considered a motion by Century 21 Harvest Realty Ltd. and Samuel Kin Yip Chang for security for costs against 5000917 Ontario Inc. in a commercial real estate dispute.

The court reviewed the applicable legal principles under Rule 56.01, including the justness of ordering security, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the merits of the claims.

The court found that 5000917 Ontario Inc. did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and that its claims did not have a clear chance of success on the record.

The court ordered security for costs in the amount of $30,000, to be paid in two installments, and reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and costs decision resulting from four consolidated actions related to a construction project.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence (trucking invoices and dump tickets) without requiring the truck drivers to testify, and by misapprehending evidence regarding soil quality and excavation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly admitted the documents under the principled approach to hearsay through viva voce testimony, especially since the appellants had not objected at trial and had taken an 'all or nothing' approach by alleging fraud.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the poor soil conditions and the necessity of trucking soil offsite.

The appeal regarding the apportionment of storage costs for a Ferrari given as compensation was also dismissed.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment that granted the respondent subcontractor a personal judgment for a structural steel subcontract and a valid lien for a miscellaneous metals subcontract.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that its lien rights for the structural steel subcontract had expired because they were not preserved separately from the miscellaneous metals subcontract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, holding that under the Construction Lien Act, a subcontractor's lien rights do not expire on a subcontract-by-subcontract basis, but rather persist until 45 days after the date of last supply of services or materials to the improvement.

The respondent was granted judgment and lien remedies for the aggregate amount of both subcontracts.

The court determined the scale and quantum of costs following previous motions.

Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing delay and unproven fraud allegations by the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc. The defendants argued for reduced partial indemnity costs due to mixed success and over-lawyering by Primont.

The court found partial indemnity was appropriate, rejecting substantial indemnity as the fraud allegations were not adjudicated on their merits.

The court also reduced Primont's requested quantum due to its unsuccessful abuse of process argument and duplicative work by its multiple timekeepers, ultimately awarding $140,000.00 in partial indemnity costs.