Jeffrey Radnoff

The moving parties brought a motion to transfer part of an appeal to the Divisional Court, extend the time to perfect the appeal, and stay the trial judgment pending appeal.

The underlying dispute involved three brothers and a jointly owned residential investment property, resulting in a trial judgment that dismissed a breach of contract claim and ordered partition and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to transfer, opting to combine the appeals under section 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to avoid inconsistent results.

The court granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal and granted a stay of the partition and sale order pending appeal, finding serious issues to be tried and a risk of irreparable harm.

The moving party, a church, sought an injunction restraining the termination of its commercial lease by the landlord pending its appeal of a decision validating a 30-day notice of termination.

The Court of Appeal granted the injunction, finding that the interpretation of conflicting lease amendments raised a serious issue to be tried, the church would suffer irreparable harm due to its extensive charitable operations and the risk of the appeal becoming moot, and the balance of convenience favoured the church as it continued to pay rent.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application to enforce an oral agreement and the granting of an application for partition and sale of property.

The successful parties (Bruno Rosso, Nancy Rosso, and Salvatore Rosso) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale to Bruno and Nancy, and on a partial indemnity scale to Salvatore.

The court considered factors including the complete success of the parties, the complexity of the issues, the proportionality of costs to the property value, the reasonableness of counsel fees and time spent, and the conduct of the unsuccessful party during litigation.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application to enforce an oral agreement and the granting of an application for partition and sale of property.

The successful parties (Bruno Rosso, Nancy Rosso, and Salvatore Rosso) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale to Bruno and Nancy, and on a partial indemnity scale to Salvatore.

The court considered factors including the complete success of the parties, the complexity of the issues, the proportionality of costs to the property value, the reasonableness of counsel fees and time spent, and the conduct of the unsuccessful party during litigation.

The court considered two competing applications between brothers who jointly owned a triplex property.

Domenic Rosso sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for the purchase of Bruno Rosso’s one-third interest in the property, while Bruno Rosso sought partition and sale of the property.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral contract due to lack of agreement on essential terms, and that even if there had been, it would have been unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and not saved by part performance.

The court granted Bruno’s application for partition and sale, and ordered an accounting.

The applicant, Marian Elizabeth Breukelman, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis after successfully defending a motion by the respondent, Dario Antonio Miret, to remove her lawyers for an alleged conflict of interest.

The court, M.D. Faieta J., assessed the costs considering factors such as the applicant's success, the complexity and importance of the issues, the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle, and the reasonableness of the time claimed by multiple counsel.

The court found the motion complex and important, and that the respondent failed to meet his obligation to settle.

While acknowledging the use of multiple counsel, the court found the total time claimed excessive and adjusted the costs downward.

The respondent husband brought a motion to disqualify the applicant wife's counsel (Tanya Road) and her sister's counsel (Rahul Shastri) in family law and related civil proceedings.

The motion was based on the fact that the respondent's former legal assistant, Olivia Valente, had subsequently been employed by Ms. Road.

The court applied a flexible, case-specific approach to the MacDonald Estate test for non-legal staff, finding that Ms. Valente's role at the former firm was purely administrative and that effective ethical screens were implemented at Ms. Road's firm.

The court concluded that a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no confidential information would be used to the prejudice of the respondent and dismissed the motion.

The appellant, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp., was defrauded in a factoring business scheme by WF Canada Ltd.'s principals.

Liquid Capital sued Frank Zito, an Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. employee, alleging his participation in the fraud, and sought to hold Enbridge vicariously liable.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding Liquid Capital had not proven Zito's involvement and, even if he was involved, Enbridge would not be vicariously liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no reversible error in refusing to find Zito liable and no error in the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal costs was denied.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order that set aside a solicitor's account assessment order as statute-barred and ordered payment of outstanding fees.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that all accounts were final and that the first 29 paid accounts were statute-barred.

However, the Court found legal errors in the motion judge's analysis regarding the last three unpaid accounts.

It clarified that special circumstances are not required for assessment of unpaid accounts sought between one and 12 months after delivery, and that Section 3(a) of the Solicitors Act applies to accounts not yet delivered at the time of requisition, thus having no limitation period.

The appeal was allowed in part, referring the last three accounts for assessment.

Following a three-day trial in which the defendant was wholly successful in defending a solicitor negligence action arising from an alleged wrongful dismissal, the defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for a lower amount based on their own trial costs and a prior security for costs order.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the importance of the issues to the defendant's professional reputation and the complexity of the taxation issues involved.

The court awarded the defendant costs in the requested amount of $51,299.61 all-inclusive, finding it reasonable and proportional.

The plaintiff, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp., sought damages for fraud against multiple defendants, including two individuals (Cook and Daoust) who created false invoices, and an Enbridge employee (Zito) and Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., alleging their involvement or vicarious liability.

The court found that Liquid Capital failed to prove Mr. Zito's participation in the fraud on a balance of probabilities, noting the plaintiff's significant lack of due diligence due to an misplaced trust in one of the fraudsters.

The court also determined that even if Mr. Zito had been involved, Enbridge would not be vicariously liable as Mr. Zito acted outside the scope of his employment and lacked the authority to approve such contracts or invoices.

The action against the defendants was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a CPA, sued his former lawyer for breach of contract and solicitor negligence, alleging improper advice regarding tax liability on a forgiven employment loan.

The plaintiff claimed the lawyer failed to advise him that he would be responsible for taxes on a $125,000 loan forgiveness from his former employer, Gemstar, and that Gemstar had agreed to pay these taxes.

The defendant lawyer asserted he advised the plaintiff that the documents did not obligate Gemstar to pay taxes and that the plaintiff, as a CPA, was aware of the tax implications of loan forgiveness.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and preferred the defendant's, concluding that Gemstar never agreed to pay the taxes and that the lawyer provided correct advice regarding the loan forgiveness extinguishing the debt.

The court dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care or compensable damages, and no loss of a real chance to sue Gemstar or negotiate a better deal.

The respondent law firm moved to set aside an assessment order obtained by the applicants, arguing it was statute-barred, and sought payment of outstanding legal fees.

The applicants cross-moved for an assessment of all 32 accounts rendered over a four-and-a-half-year retainer.

The central issue was whether the accounts were "interim" or "final" for the purpose of limitation periods under the Solicitors Act.

The court found that the accounts were final, based on the parties' intention, regular payment without complaint, and the nature of the billing.

The court concluded that the assessment order was statute-barred and ordered the applicants to pay the outstanding legal fees.

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims based on the expiry of limitation periods and the alleged non-existence of an oral trust agreement.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting fraudulent concealment and the existence of an oral, resulting, or constructive trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties, the nature of the alleged trust, and the application of limitation periods.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment would not achieve a faster or cheaper resolution and risked inconsistent findings due to the intertwined factual and credibility disputes.

The defendants brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel, Matthew Valitutti and Jeffrey Radnoff, alleging a conflict of interest based on a prior lawyer-client relationship between Mr. Valitutti and the defendant Giuseppe Prizzi.

Mr. Prizzi claimed Mr. Valitutti had provided ongoing legal advice to Mr. Prizzi on business matters, including those related to the plaintiff, in exchange for landscaping services.

Mr. Valitutti denied any such relationship or providing legal advice.

The court, applying the MacDonald Estate v. Martin test, found that the defendants failed to discharge their onus to prove a prior lawyer-client relationship, citing a lack of objective corroborating evidence for Mr. Prizzi's assertions which were forcefully denied by Mr. Valitutti.

The motion to disqualify counsel was dismissed.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that the lease agreement with the respondent tenant was a commercial lease subject to the Commercial Tenancies Act, despite being executed on a standard residential lease form.

The court applied the predominant purpose test, finding that the tenant used the property primarily for its telecommunications construction business, maintained heavy equipment on site, and used the house as a corporate office.

The court held that the lease was commercial in nature and granted the declaratory relief.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) over several properties allegedly purchased with profits from a landscaping business he co-founded with the individual defendant.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which the court denied due to their failure to advance the proceeding or file evidence.

The court found the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding an interest in land based on claims of partnership breach, oppression, and constructive trust.

Applying the Dhunna criteria, the court concluded the equities favoured granting the CPL to protect the plaintiff's interests.

The applicant law firm brought a motion seeking directions to assess all legal accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, including those rendered to predecessor counsel between 2012 and 2018.

The respondent argued that only its final account rendered to the applicant was subject to assessment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Solicitors Act, the applicant lacked standing to assess the prior accounts as it was neither a client, a party chargeable, nor a party who had paid those accounts.