Jack B. Siegel

The Bank of Montreal brought an action to collect moneys due under a line of credit agreement.

The only issue was whether the defendant, Joseph Ieradi, entered into the agreement personally or on behalf of his corporations.

The court found that the agreement was personal, not corporate, and that the defendant was personally liable for the debt, despite the absence of the original written agreement.

The court relied on secondary evidence and the parties' conduct to reach its conclusion.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted an application for a recount of votes in the electoral district of Mississauga–Erin Mills following Ontario’s 44th General Election held on February 27, 2025.

The applicants, including the Chief Electoral Officer and Returning Officer, sought the recount pursuant to sections 67, 69, and 71 of the Election Act due to the narrow margin of 20 votes between the two leading candidates, Sheref Sabawy and Qasir Dar.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of ordering recounts even when the statutory threshold for a recount is met, balancing finality, reviewability, and public confidence in electoral outcomes.

The recount was ordered to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the democratic process despite no specific evidence of error.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Andrea Grebenc’s application for a judicial recount in the electoral district of Burlington, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case that a recount would change the election outcome.

The court emphasized the strict statutory timelines under section 71(1) of the Elections Act requiring recount applications to be brought and heard within four days of official tabulation.

Despite credible evidence from a scrutineer regarding improperly rejected ballots, the net difference in votes was only one, insufficient to justify a recount.

The decision underscores the importance of judicial discretion in balancing public confidence in election finality with the need for accuracy.

The plaintiff, Frank Miele, a failed mayoral candidate, brought a lawsuit alleging corruption and fraud against the entire municipal council and mayor of Vaughan, seeking $210 million in damages and disqualification from office.

Miele later admitted his allegations were baseless and apologized.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $1.2 million.

The court rejected Miele's arguments for reduced costs, finding his testimony inconsistent and his claims of lack of understanding incredible given his extensive municipal finance background.

The court ruled that bringing a meritless lawsuit is an abuse of process, not public interest litigation, and ordered Miele to pay substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, including $813,101.99 to the City of Vaughan.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action named numerous defendants including government entities, corporations, and political parties, alleging perceived personal wrongs.

The motion judge found the statement of claim contained nonsensical allegations that disclosed no cause of action against any defendant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding both the underlying action and the notice of appeal to be frivolous and vexatious, as the appeal grounds merely reiterated the same problematic allegations from the statement of claim without demonstrating any merit.

The plaintiffs, Tony’s Touch Plumbing Ltd. and Level V Design & Build Inc., brought construction lien claims against the defendant, Hatcho Nersesian, for unpaid plumbing, HVAC, and project management services and materials supplied for a new home construction.

Mr. Nersesian disputed the claims, alleging overcharging, deficient work, and incomplete work, and brought counterclaims for backcharges and exaggerated lien claims under section 35 of the Construction Lien Act.

The court found that Mr. Nersesian breached his contracts with Tony’s by imposing unreasonable deadlines and terminating the contract without allowing an opportunity to complete work or rectify deficiencies.

The court also found that Level V was entitled to a project management fee for the initial "weather tight" stage and a commission on trades it introduced thereafter, but not a full project management fee for the entire project due to lack of evidence of services.

Mr. Nersesian's counterclaims for backcharges and section 35 damages against both plaintiffs were dismissed due to failure to mitigate and lack of evidence of damages.

The defendants brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The charges arose from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in June 2012 that resulted in one death and injuries.

The defendants were charged in June 2013 with offences under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The trial commenced in November 2015 but was declared a mistrial in May 2017 when the presiding judge was appointed to the Superior Court.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that the net delay far exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months.

Although the Crown established certain discrete events and argued the case was complex, the court determined that even accounting for these exceptional circumstances, the delay remained unjustified.

The court granted the stay of proceedings for all defendants.

A provincial court judge presiding over a lengthy trial involving charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in Toronto was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice mid-trial.

The Crown argued the judge retained jurisdiction to complete the trial under the Provincial Offences Act, while the defence argued the appointment resulted in loss of jurisdiction.

The court found that the judge had lost jurisdiction to continue the trial, as the Provincial Offences Act lacks a provision comparable to section 669.3 of the Criminal Code permitting continuing jurisdiction upon appointment to another court.

A new trial was ordered.

Defendants charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act brought applications alleging violations of their Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, determining that while the net delay of approximately 44 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice trials, the Crown established exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court found the case was particularly complex due to the nature of the evidence and issues involved, and that the transitional exceptional circumstance applied to cases in the system when Jordan was released.

The applications were dismissed.

This is a trial decision on a voir dire regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a concert venue that resulted in a fatality.

The defendant Live Nation Canada Inc. challenged the qualification of two Ministry of Labour engineers to provide expert opinion evidence on the cause of the stage collapse.

The court found that both experts met the threshold requirement to testify, applying the test established in White Burgess v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. The court rejected arguments that the experts' involvement in the investigation, their employment relationship with the Ministry of Labour, and their participation in interviews with defendants undermined their independence and impartiality.

The applicant, a Liberal candidate in the 2014 Ontario provincial election for the electoral district of Thornhill, sought a recount of ballots pursuant to Section 71 of the Election Act.

On election night, unofficial results showed the applicant winning by 85 votes.

However, the official tabulation conducted the following day showed the respondent, a Progressive Conservative candidate, winning by the same 85-vote margin.

The applicant alleged improper rejection of ballots and improper tabulation by the returning officer.

The court ordered a recount, finding that the discrepancy between the unofficial and official tallies, combined with the extremely narrow margin of victory and concerns about voter confidence in the democratic process, established a prima facie case for relief under Section 71(1)(b) of the Election Act.