Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet

The plaintiff purchased a spa business from the defendant for $85,000.

Shortly after closing, the municipality ordered the business to shut down for operating as an unlicensed body-rub establishment.

The plaintiff sued for rescission or damages, alleging breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

The court found that the defendant breached the contractual representation that the business was operating in compliance with zoning and governmental regulations.

However, the court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claims due to lack of reliance and failure of proof.

The court awarded the plaintiff $35,000 in damages, applying a 50% reduction for contributory fault because the plaintiff failed to make reasonable inquiries about licensing prior to closing.

A son sued his mother for conversion of property, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and sought a constructive trust on her condominium and punitive damages.

The plaintiff alleged his mother used funds from his bank account for her own benefit, including to accelerate mortgage payments and purchase a condominium in India.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish conversion, unjust enrichment, or breach of fiduciary duty.

The mother acted in good faith while managing family finances during a period of financial constraint.

The plaintiff left his mother's home with no debt, a graduate degree, a fully-paid car, and $90,000 in savings.

The claim was dismissed.

Diesel Freight Forwarders Ltd. (DFF) sought to enforce minutes of settlement against AYS Holdings Inc. (AYS) after AYS breached payment terms.

AYS admitted the breach but argued against strict enforcement, citing cash flow issues.

The court found the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract, distinguishing it from a Rule 49 offer, and ruled that AYS had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant relief from the agreed-upon consequences of default.

DFF's motion was granted, and AYS was ordered to pay the accelerated amount plus interest and costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certification motion for a proposed class action against a car rental company.

The proposed class consisted of branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as managers and improperly denied overtime pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims lacked sufficient commonality due to the substantial variability in the job functions and duties actually performed by the proposed class members across different branch locations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to certify aggregate damages and the finding that British Columbia class members had no cause of action.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a car rental company, alleging systemic misclassification of branch managers and seeking unpaid overtime.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues regarding misclassification could not be resolved on a class-wide basis due to significant variability in the actual job functions performed by managers across different branch locations.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's proposed methodologies for calculating aggregate damages, which relied on computer log-in data and anonymous crowdsourced internet reviews.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated by the defendant due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the Bardal factors, noting the plaintiff's 9.8 years of service, age of 39, and specialized training, to award an 11-month notice period.

The court included pension contributions and a 10% benefits value in the award, but declined to reimburse post-termination training expenses.

The court also found that a 25% salary reduction prior to termination constituted constructive dismissal, meaning the plaintiff's subsequent resignation did not reduce her entitlement.

The parties agreed upon a timetable leading up to a certification motion in a class proceeding.

The court endorsed the agreed-upon schedule, setting dates for the exchange of motion records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the motion returnable for three days in May and June 2022.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought to strike allegations of performance issues, arguing they were irrelevant as the termination was without cause, and allegations of a settlement offer.

The court agreed, finding the performance issues were not tied to the bonus claim as argued by the defendant, and that pleading a settlement offer or a 'reasonable termination arrangement' was irrelevant and improper.

The motion was granted and the offending paragraphs were struck.

The plaintiff sued former business partners over promissory notes said to evidence unmatched contributions and direct loans made during the start-up and operation of a food manufacturing business.

The defendants alleged the notes and shareholder agreement were forged, but the court preferred the plaintiff’s evidence, rejected the defendants’ credibility, accepted the plaintiff’s forensic handwriting expert, and gave no weight to the defence expert report for both procedural and substantive reasons.

Applying the Bills of Exchange Act and Interest Act, the court held the notes were valid promissory notes supported by antecedent debt and forbearance, subject to set-off for one defendant’s proven capital contribution.

Punitive damages were refused, with the court holding that litigation misconduct and disclosure failures could be addressed in costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' common employer claim, strike certain allegations as scandalous, and sever the plaintiffs' wrongful dismissal claims.

The court found that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts supporting the common employer claim, including integrated operations and common control.

The court also held that allegations of the defendants diverting funds were relevant to the common employer analysis and not scandalous.

Finally, the court refused to sever the claims, finding that a joint trial on the common employer issue would be more efficient and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants' motions were dismissed.

This appeal concerned the application of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, to an oppression remedy claim under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The shareholder (appellant) advanced three claims based on discrete oppressive acts: failure to distribute profits, unauthorized sale/transfer of business, and unauthorized corporate dissolution.

The motion judge summarily dismissed the entire action as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal held that while the first two claims were discoverable more than two years before the action was commenced and thus statute-barred, the claim regarding the unauthorized corporate dissolution was not, as it occurred and was discovered later.

The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the corporate dissolution claim to proceed.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent employee $22,084 in a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Rules.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in proceeding by summary judgment and in determining the issue of mitigation without cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there were no genuine issues of credibility and that the respondent's mitigation efforts were reasonable.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to set aside the costs order, as the motion judge had failed to hear costs submissions.

This addendum to reasons for summary judgment addressed the disposition of a $50,000 US gift intended for a property for pilgrims in Poland.

The court found that the funds were misappropriated by an associate of the Plaintiff for personal use (car purchase and condominium down payment).

Despite a clear moral obligation for the Plaintiff or its associate to repay the funds, the court determined that any legal claim for their return was time-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the donor was aware of the misuse in 2014.

The court also found the Plaintiff's allegations of impropriety against the defendant to be false and awarded costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff, Maison Saint-Michel, alleged forgery, theft, and fraud against the defendants, Jacek Morawa and Canadian Institute of Divine Mercy, concerning a deceased donor's condominium gift and its proceeds.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found no credible evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations, noting the plaintiff's selective disclosure in a prior injunction application and its failure to respect the donor's conditional gifts.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs, concluding that the donor's wishes were for the funds to benefit the Polish Catholic community through the defendants, not the plaintiff's general coffers.

The plaintiff, a 51-year-old dental receptionist with 17 years of service, was terminated without cause and brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant argued that the notice period and mitigation efforts were contentious issues requiring a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding credibility or facts.

The court awarded a 12-month notice period, finding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts reasonable overall, though slightly deficient during a 3-month period of temporary employment.

Damages of $22,084 and costs of $24,162.79 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent damages for the wrongful termination of a six-month fixed-term consulting contract.

The appellant argued that damages should be limited to the two-week early termination notice period provided in the contract, and that the respondent had a duty to mitigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant never actually invoked the early termination clause until two days before the contract expired, effectively keeping the respondent on call.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was entitled to the balance of the fixed-term contract price without a duty to mitigate.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisal related to events that occurred after she began her maternity leave.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was untimely, prejudicial, and included privileged settlement communications.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the new allegations related to continuing exchanges between the parties and would not require additional witnesses, thus causing no prejudice to the respondents despite the late stage of the proceeding.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled on multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The respondent Securitas sought production of minutes of settlement between the applicant and a former respondent, Pepsi.

The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the settlement quantum to prevent double recovery, applying an exception to settlement privilege.

The applicant's request to amend his application to significantly increase the damages claimed was denied due to delay and lack of material change in circumstances.

The applicant's requests for production of internal correspondence were granted in part regarding the respondent All Star Security's hiring process, but denied regarding Securitas and Pepsi for being overbroad or lacking arguable relevance.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because a Superior Court action regarding an aborted agreement of purchase and sale for the property was ongoing.

The Divisional Court held that the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over residential lease terminations and that the tenant was using the appeal process to live rent-free.

The court found the appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit, and quashed the appeal, lifting the stay of eviction.