Sergio Grillone

The appellant appealed an order vacating a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) from a property title.

The CPL was initially granted without proper notice to the respondents and based on materially incorrect factual representations by the appellant's counsel.

The court upheld the Associate Justice's decision to vacate the CPL, emphasizing the duty of full and fair disclosure in motions, particularly those effectively brought without notice, and the impact of inaccurate evidentiary records.

The court also affirmed the Associate Justice's discretion in allowing an intervener to participate.

The defendant process server brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged fraud, conspiracy, negligence, and breach of contract arising from allegedly forged affidavits of service and fraudulent billing.

The court struck the breach of contract and negligence claims without leave to amend, finding no privity of contract and no tenable duty of care owed by the defendant in his capacity as a commissioner of oaths.

The fraud and conspiracy claims were struck with leave to amend, as the plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite material facts and elements with specificity.

Inflammatory paragraphs were also struck.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vella J. dated July 15, 2022.

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

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to set aside a judgment obtained by the plaintiff litigation lender.

The judgment had been granted based on Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties after the defendants defaulted on a settlement agreement.

The defendant argued the judgment was incorrect, failed to acknowledge past payments, and was obtained using forged affidavits of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the judgment was a consent judgment, not a default judgment, and the defendant failed to establish any valid grounds such as fraud or mistake to set aside the underlying agreement.

The court also noted the defendant's significant delay in bringing the motion.

The defendants to the counterclaim brought a motion to set aside a noting in default.

Their counsel inadvertently missed the deadline to deliver a defence to the counterclaim after a negotiated resolution of a prior motion to strike.

The court found that the moving parties demonstrated a clear intention to defend the counterclaim, the delay was due to counsel's inadvertence, and the motion to set aside was brought promptly.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the noting in default to allow the complex claims to be resolved on their merits.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed an Associate Justice's dismissal of his motion for security for costs.

The appellant argued the Associate Justice erred by not first determining if the prerequisite factors under Rule 56.01(1) were met before exercising discretion, and by excluding a late-filed reply affidavit.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Associate Justice correctly applied a holistic approach to determine if a security for costs order was just, properly concluded the appellant failed to prove entitlement to costs as a self-represented litigant, and appropriately excluded the late affidavit due to prejudice.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision enforcing a settlement agreement.

The core issue was the interpretation of an email clause regarding the direction of share purchase monies, specifically whether the phrase 'Subject to any contrary direction by His Honour' allowed the motion judge to direct funds into court for creditors.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding it was open to him based on the record.

The appellants' application to introduce fresh evidence was dismissed as irrelevant or already dealt with by the settlement terms.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment against a lawyer who failed to honour an irrevocable direction to pay settlement funds to repay a litigation loan.

The lawyer had acknowledged the direction but mistakenly paid the settlement funds directly to his client.

The court found the lawyer personally liable for breaching his covenant, treating it akin to a solicitor's undertaking.

The plaintiff was awarded the principal amount plus contractual interest up to the date of the breach, and statutory prejudgment interest thereafter.

The claim against the lawyer's LLP was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The plaintiffs brought a Rule 21 motion to strike portions of the defendants' amended statement of defence and counterclaim, which relied on the doctrine of ex turpi causa.

The defendants alleged the loan funds advanced by the plaintiffs were obtained through illegal means.

The court struck the counterclaim without leave to amend, noting ex turpi causa operates only as a defence, not a cause of action.

The court also struck the relevant portion of the statement of defence, finding no pleaded nexus between the alleged illegal schemes and the loan transactions, but granted leave to amend.

The plaintiffs sought costs for their successful Fresh Evidence and Mareva Injunction motions against the Grillone Defendants, and the defendant Lisa Gatto sought costs for the Mareva Injunction motion that was withdrawn against her.

The court awarded Gatto $7,500 in partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiffs.

The court found the Grillone Defendants engaged in dishonourable conduct deserving of censure and awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs totaling $44,500, which included the amount the plaintiffs were ordered to pay Gatto.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied her claims for attendant care and medical benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator failed to properly consider her medical evidence, including her family doctor's opinion and a psychiatric report.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original adjudicator adequately weighed the competing medical reports and provided sufficient reasons for preferring the respondent's assessment.

The Vice-Chair concluded there was no significant error of law or fact, nor any breach of procedural fairness, to warrant a reconsideration.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 16, 2018.

However, no counsel appeared for the appellant at the hearing, and counsel for the respondent advised that a Notice of Abandonment was to be filed.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The insured requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered her to repay $17,200 in overpaid income replacement benefits (IRBs) to Unifund.

The insured argued that the Tribunal erred by failing to adjudicate her claim that she was entitled to further IRBs, which should be set off against the overpayment.

The Associate Chair granted the reconsideration in part, finding that the Tribunal made a significant error of law by not considering the insured's arguments and evidence regarding IRB entitlement and set off, which were properly raised in the proceeding.

The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to determine the issue of IRB entitlement and any resulting set off.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, attendant care benefits, and various medical and assessment expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the claim for attendant care benefits was statute-barred as it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period, and declined to extend the time.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a catastrophic impairment, preferring the respondent's expert evidence over the applicant's.

Consequently, the claims for housekeeping benefits, chiropractic treatment, and a chronic pain assessment were all dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to amend a 2014 default judgment against the defendant Grocery Dayton to make the defendant Wakefern Food Corporation liable for the judgment.

This was the second time the plaintiffs brought this motion; the first was dismissed and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Wakefern raised a preliminary objection of res judicata.

The court found that the motion sought the same relief as the previous motion and that the new evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs could have been discovered with due diligence or did not constitute an admission.

The court dismissed the motion based on the doctrine of res judicata.

The applicant insurer sought to recover an overpayment of $17,200.00 in income replacement benefits paid to the respondent after she had returned to full-time work.

The respondent argued that the notice of repayment was defective.

The adjudicator found that the notice met the requirements of section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and ordered the respondent to repay the overpayment plus interest.

The applicant's request for costs was denied due to insufficient evidence of unreasonable conduct.

The plaintiff was injured during a soccer game when he was unexpectedly punched by an opposing player after the referee blew the whistle.

The plaintiff sued the opposing player, the soccer clubs, the coach, and the league for negligence.

The soccer club defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

The court granted the motion, finding that the assault was a sudden, unprovoked, and unforeseeable event, and that the coach and club defendants did not breach their standard of care.

The defendant Greensward brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the adequacy of salting at a commercial property where the plaintiff slipped and fell.

Alternatively, Greensward sought to stay the plaintiffs' action for non-compliance with an interlocutory order concerning undertakings.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact, particularly concerning the adequacy of salting and the standard of care, which required a trial and credibility assessment.

The court also dismissed the motion to stay the action, noting that the plaintiffs had shown partial compliance and that a stay was not "just" given the circumstances, but ordered the plaintiffs' counsel to provide a detailed affidavit on the status of all undertakings.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a motion where the defendants were entirely successful.

The defendants sought $3,938.05, but their bill of costs lacked time dockets, preventing the court from assessing potential duplication of effort by two counsel.

The plaintiff proposed paying $2,500.

The court found the plaintiff's proposed amount reasonable given the circumstances and the lack of detailed dockets from the defendants.

The appellants obtained a default judgment against Grocery Dayton for $980,200 after discontinuing their action against Wakefern Food Corporation.

Upon discovering Grocery Dayton was not a legal entity, the appellants moved to amend the judgment to add Wakefern as a judgment debtor, arguing Grocery Dayton was merely an alias for Wakefern.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence that the two were the same entity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing there was insufficient evidence and that it would be unfair to add Wakefern without allowing it to defend the action on its merits.

However, the Court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the discontinuance against Wakefern.