Emilio Bisceglia

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to oppose the confirmation of a referee's report granting partial summary judgment, the defendant sought costs of $40,872.16 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to the final disposition of the reference or reduced.

The court declined to defer costs, noting that costs should generally be awarded for every step of the litigation process.

The court fixed costs at $35,000, finding this amount closer to the reasonable expectations of the parties given the complexity and importance of the issues.

The parties requested a revision to the procedural timelines contained in the Amending Procedural Order to facilitate a mediation scheduled for July 7, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request on consent and issued a revised Procedural Order governing the conduct of the proceeding leading up to the hearing commencing on November 2, 2026.

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 parties to an expropriation compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act submitted a proposed procedural order to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued the procedural order on consent to govern the future conduct of the proceeding, including setting dates for discovery, mediation, and an eight-day hearing.

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 parties submitted a draft Procedural Order to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of lands by Metrolinx.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, scheduling an eight-day video hearing to commence on February 22, 2027, and setting out the procedural timetable for documentary discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The parties requested on consent to amend the hearing date and procedural timelines for an expropriation compensation claim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, rescheduling the seven-day hearing to commence on November 2, 2026, and issued an updated Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps.

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 City of Toronto brought a motion to compel the Claimant to answer undertakings and questions refused at an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation claim.

The Claimant provided no meaningful response to the motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the Claimant to answer the refused questions and provide relevant documentation regarding his claims for injurious affection and loss of rental income, failing which he may abandon the claims.

The City was also granted the option to conduct a further examination for discovery.

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.

The parties requested on consent to amend some of the procedural timelines contained in a previously issued Procedural Order regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and issued an amended Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding leading up to the hearing scheduled for February 2026.

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 Respondent, Metrolinx, brought a motion to compel the Claimants to answer undertakings and questions refused during an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The Claimants sought over $59 million in compensation but failed to provide particulars for their business loss and disturbance damage claims.

The Tribunal found the Claimants' refusals to answer questions regarding the highest and best use of the property and their allegations of bad faith to be unreasonable.

The motion was granted, and the Claimants were ordered to provide fulsome answers and pay $7,500 in costs to the Respondent.

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.