Peter W. Neufeld

An application to prove the last will and testament of a deceased person where the original will was lost.

The applicant sought a declaration that a photocopy of the will dated June 23, 2010 should be admitted to probate.

The respondents consented to the relief sought.

The court found that the applicant successfully rebutted the presumption that the testator destroyed the will with intent to revoke it, as the original will had been retained by the testator's lawyer and later delivered to the testator's spouse, meaning the testator never had possession of it.

The court admitted the will to probate and appointed the applicant as estate trustee with no costs awarded against the respondents.

The applicants brought a motion to continue a Mareva injunction that had been granted ex parte by Justice Mathai on May 16, 2025.

The injunction was sought in connection with an alleged fraudulent conveyance of a commercial property (the Upper James Property) and a breach of an agreement for purchase and sale.

The respondent provided evidence explaining the business rationale for the property transfer and subsequent sale, including financing constraints and the need to relocate the business to a more affordable location.

The court found that the respondent's evidence, if accepted, demonstrated that the transactions were not motivated by asset dissipation or an intent to avoid judgment.

The court discontinued the Mareva injunction, finding no compelling evidence of fraudulent conveyance and noting the significant hardship the injunction was causing to the respondent's business and family.

The plaintiff, Huanyu Shi, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Junxu Chen, for defaulting on a cross-border currency exchange/loan agreement.

The court found that Mr. Chen received substantial funds from Mr. Shi and failed to repay them as agreed, rejecting Mr. Chen’s claims of repayment.

The court awarded Mr. Shi $2,308,309 in damages, declined to award punitive damages, and refused to impose a tracing order or constructive trust.

Substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest were also awarded.

The applicants, Ada De Novellis and Michael Ceci, brought a motion within a guardianship application concerning their 92-year-old mother, Dolorosa Ceci, who suffers from dementia.

They sought an accounting of proceeds from a charge registered by the respondent, Dario Ceci, against Dolorosa's property, an order for Dario to reimburse Dolorosa for legal fees paid from her assets, and an interim injunction restraining Dario from dealing with Dolorosa's assets.

The court dismissed the motion for an accounting, finding Dario had provided sufficient explanation.

It also dismissed the request for reimbursement of legal fees, instead ordering a charge on Dario's home as security.

Finally, the court dismissed the injunction request, finding no irreparable harm as Dolorosa had sufficient security.

This motion addresses the interim management of an incapable person's (Lionel Bascus) property and personal care, pending a full application challenging the validity of recently executed powers of attorney (POAs) and a property transfer.

The applicant, Mr. Bascus's daughter, sought directions for his care and production of records, alleging the respondent, Mr. Bascus's sister, was not acting in his best interests.

The court found the respondent was not adhering to statutory principles for substitute decision-makers, particularly regarding consultation and advocating for appropriate long-term care.

The court ordered directions for personal care, mandating consultation between the parties and access to medical information for the applicant.

It also ordered limited production of medical and solicitor records relevant to the POAs and property transfers, but denied access to financial and estate planning records.

The respondent's request to unfreeze bank accounts was denied as it was not brought by motion.

The applicant sought the appointment of a receiver to sell an apartment building in Toronto and the recognition and enforcement of a New York Supreme Court order.

The parties, formerly married, had a divorce agreement requiring the applicant to receive US$500,000 for her interest in the property by June 2020, which the respondent had repeatedly frustrated.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver due to the respondent's deliberate obstruction, the parties' impasse, the impending mortgage maturity, and the property's negative cash flow.

The court also recognized and enforced the New York order for interest, rental revenues, and costs, finding the New York court had jurisdiction, the order was final, and no valid defenses were raised.

This appeal addressed a pre-contractual negligent misrepresentation and the interpretation of a commercial lease.

The trial judge found that the tenant (respondent) reasonably relied on the landlord's (appellant's) negligent misrepresentation regarding free, accessible, and convenient customer parking, and that the entire agreement provision in the lease did not preclude the tenant's claim for damages.

On appeal, the landlord argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider the lease as a whole, specifically articles related to parking, which it contended formed part of the "subject matter" of the lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that customer parking was not the "subject matter" of the lease and that the entire agreement clause did not preclude the claim, applying a deferential standard of review for contractual interpretation.

The respondent, Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Rita Persaud, successfully moved for an order declaring the applicant, Mohini Persaud, a vexatious litigant.

The court found a persistent pattern of vexatious proceedings and conduct across multiple court levels, including repeated issues, failure to comply with court directions, excessive communication, and non-payment of costs awards.

As a result, the applicant was barred from instituting further proceedings in Ontario courts without leave and required leave to continue her current application.

The Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Rita Persaud brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement against Chabiraj Persaud, the deceased's son, concerning the sale of a residential property.

The Litigation Administrator alleged that Chabiraj breached the agreement by further encumbering the property, increasing existing charges, and improperly withdrawing funds for an unsecured line of credit from the sale proceeds.

The court found that Chabiraj breached the settlement agreement by taking out new mortgages/lines of credit and improperly deducting funds, awarding damages of $220,578.48 plus pre-judgment interest to the Estate.

The court declined to find a breach regarding a commercially unreasonable realtor commission due to lack of evidence and also denied the request for injunctive relief.

The appellant law firm appealed a Superior Court order that set aside an Associate Judge's decision to reinstate their action, which had been dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly identified legal errors in the Associate Judge's application of the Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. test for reinstating actions dismissed for delay.

Specifically, the Associate Judge erred by treating periods of delay in isolation and by focusing on whether delay was "forgivable" rather than "sufficiently explained," despite evidence of egregious and unexplained delays.

The Court affirmed the motion judge's appropriate application of appellate jurisdiction and deference principles.

The defendant, Yin Liang, appealed an Associate Justice's order granting the plaintiff, Suevilia Development Corporation, leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Ms. Liang's husband, Hanyu Zhao, as a defendant and to plead claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance.

The appeal court reviewed the Associate Judge's decision on the applicable tests under Rule 26.01 and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including issues of non-compensable prejudice, limitation periods, and whether the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision regarding the limitation period or the tenability of the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

Hazelton Homes Corporation (Plaintiff) claimed beneficial ownership of two properties registered to Morteza Katebian, who had defaulted on mortgages held by Home Trust Company and Ivan Terziev and Elena Mechtcheriakova (Second Mortgagees).

Following the conversion of applications into an action, the defendants (Katebian, Payam, Home Trust, and Second Mortgagees) moved for security for costs against Hazelton.

The court found good reason to believe Hazelton's claim against Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees was frivolous and vexatious, and that Hazelton, a shell corporation, had insufficient assets.

The motion for security for costs was granted for Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees, with specific amounts ordered to be paid into court or credited from existing holdbacks.

Katebian and Payam's motion for security for costs was adjourned pending their delivery of a Statement of Defence.

This endorsement clarifies the administrative nature of scheduling urgent matters before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession provides guidelines for urgent services, not statutory rules, and that the scheduling process is an administrative function.

Submissions on the merits or the issue of urgency are not required or helpful once a matter has been scheduled, as they clog court resources and are not part of the legal dispute between parties.

The court scheduled the applicant's proposed matter for an urgent case conference, dismissing the respondent's subsequent submissions against urgency.

The plaintiff sought payment on a promissory note and moved for summary judgment.

The defendant alleged breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation by the plaintiff's principal, Dr. Takhar, for failing to disclose disciplinary actions.

Both parties brought motions for further answers to undertakings and questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits related to the pending summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion for further answers from the plaintiff, finding the questions irrelevant to the defence theory.

The court largely dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further answers from the defendant, also finding most questions irrelevant, but ordered the defendant to fulfill one undertaking regarding the use of loan funds.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to commence an action for secondary market misrepresentation against Pretium Resources Inc. and Robert A. Quartermain.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding conflicting expert opinions on the validity of a mineral resource estimate for the Brucejack Project, leading to a significant drop in share price.

The court granted leave, finding that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

The court determined that the concerns raised by Strathcona Mineral Services, a respected mining consultant, were material facts that a reasonable investor would consider important, despite Pretium's belief that the data was unreliable.

Furthermore, the court found a reasonable possibility that the defendants would not be able to establish the "no reasonable grounds to believe" branch of their reasonable investigation defense under s. 138.4(6) of the OSA.