J. Ivan Marini

The applicant landlord sought vacant possession and damages from the respondents, a tenant and a related corporation.

The respondents brought a cross-application for damages and determination of rights under a settlement agreement.

The court found the landlord-tenant relationship had irretrievably broken down due to the tenant's admitted failure to pay rent, which constituted a fundamental breach of the lease.

The court granted the landlord a declaration that the lease was terminated and issued a writ of possession, delayed by 30 days.

However, due to significant factual disputes, credibility issues, and the potential need for expert evidence, the court converted all remaining claims for damages from both parties into a single action to proceed with fresh pleadings and examinations for discovery.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, based on allegations of past conduct and false statements.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered the revocation of the appellant's registration, with the condition that he may apply for reinstatement after one year, provided he completes an anger management program, mandatory continuing education, and provides a criminal record check.

The applicants in an estate litigation matter brought a motion to remove the respondent Estate Trustee's counsel of record.

The applicants alleged bad faith, a conflict of interest arising from the lawyer's past marriage to the applicants' sister and past representation of two applicants, and the likelihood that the lawyer would be called as a witness at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no disqualifying conflict of interest, no risk of misuse of confidential information, and no real basis to believe the lawyer would likely provide material evidence at trial.

This is a costs ruling following a successful application by Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 627 to enforce an arbitration agreement and award against the Grandview respondents, and to set aside a solicitors' charging order claimed by Blaney McMurtry LLP.

The applicant sought costs on various scales against both sets of respondents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the Grandview respondents for their failure to comply with the arbitration agreement and award, and partial indemnity costs against Blaney McMurtry LLP as the unsuccessful party regarding the charging order.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration agreement and award, which required the transfer of property from the developer respondents free of encumbrances.

The respondent law firm, Blaney McMurtry LLP, opposed this, asserting a valid solicitors' charging order over the same property for unpaid legal fees.

The court considered whether to set aside or vary the charging orders and whether to enforce the arbitration award.

The court found that the charging orders improperly covered property not "recovered or preserved" through the solicitors' work and set them aside as against the transfers to the condominium.

Consequently, the arbitration agreement and award were enforced and incorporated into a judgment.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its summary judgment motion in a personal injury action arising from an assault that occurred after the plaintiff left a restaurant.

The proposed appeal argued that no duty of care was owed and that the harm was not reasonably foreseeable, particularly because the assault occurred off-premises.

Applying r. 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order under appeal.

The court further held that it was not appropriate at this interlocutory stage to grant leave merely to obtain appellate guidance on the law, where the matter would proceed to trial.

The applicant employer successfully sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, resulting in the reinstatement of the grievor's employment termination.

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs, leaving only the quantum to be determined.

The court assessed the claimed fees and disbursements, reducing the fees to $10,000 and disbursements to $2,535, noting the complexity of the proceeding and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party under Rule 57.01(1).

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision to reinstate a bus driver who was terminated after a rear-end collision.

The arbitrator found the driver was careless but held the collective agreement required 'flagrant' carelessness to justify automatic dismissal.

The Divisional Court held the arbitrator's interpretation was unreasonable and violated the clear wording of the collective agreement and s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The arbitrator's decision was set aside and the termination was reinstated.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of The Dizzy Weasel Pub and Grub.

The Board ordered both the Licensee and the Registrar to complete mutual disclosure of witness lists, evidence summaries, and other materials at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

A subsequent corrigendum corrected a clerical error to note the attendance of the Licensee's representative at the pre-hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim under section 30(1)(a) of the Schedule, arguing the applicant knew or ought to have known she was operating an uninsured vehicle.

The arbitrator found that the applicant reasonably believed her former partner had renewed her insurance and was not wilfully blind to the fact that she was uninsured.

The insurer was not entitled to rely on the exclusion.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding a real estate offer.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error, agreeing that the offer presented did not meet the requirements of a prior court order because it was conditional and not at arm's length.

The appeal on the merits and the appeal as to costs were both dismissed.