Loretta P. Merritt

The plaintiffs, an elevator maintenance company and its parent corporation, brought an urgent ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction and other injunctions restraining a former president and CEO, his wife, and their competing corporation from using the plaintiffs' credit cards or funds, soliciting customers or employees, and from making unauthorized changes to corporate governance documents.

The court found extraordinary urgency and a strong prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of corporate funds, misappropriation of corporate opportunity, conspiracy, and breach of a unanimous shareholder agreement.

Interim injunctions were granted restraining the defendants from using corporate funds and soliciting customers and employees, and restraining the individual defendant from altering corporate documents or breaching his fiduciary duties.

The Mareva injunction was refused on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of a serious risk the defendant would remove or dissipate assets before judgment.

The applicant, a former chartered professional accountant, sought a declaration that two negligence actions brought against him by separate clients constituted separate claims under two professional liability insurance policies, thereby providing access to $3,000,000 in combined coverage rather than $1,000,000 under a single policy.

The insurer argued the application was premature because determining whether the two actions arose from a "common set of circumstances" required factual findings that could prejudice the applicant's defence in the underlying actions.

The court agreed the application was premature, finding it inappropriate to determine whether the claims shared common circumstances based on an incomplete factual record where the underlying actions had not yet proceeded to discovery or trial.

The plaintiff bank brought a contempt penalty motion against the defendant, who had been found in contempt for failing to attend a court-ordered examination in aid of execution.

Despite multiple orders compelling attendance and document production, the defendant repeatedly failed to comply, including failing to attend the penalty hearing itself.

The court ordered the defendant to pay costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $15,587.50 for the penalty hearing, a failed examination where the defendant claimed not to speak English, and a subsequent examination the defendant failed to attend.

Two employees of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) employed as Mobile Investment Consultants were terminated without cause due to a restructuring.

They sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming entitlement to damages in lieu of reasonable notice under common law.

The central issue was whether the termination provision in their employment contracts was enforceable or violated the Canada Labour Code.

The court found the termination provision unenforceable because the "For Cause" provision defined cause more broadly than the statutory definition of "just cause" under the Canada Labour Code, and the "Without Cause" provision's language permitting termination "at any time" was contrary to the statutory framework.

The court determined reasonable notice periods of seven months for one plaintiff and twelve months for the other, and awarded damages for salary, commissions, bonuses, and benefits during those periods.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award interpreting a Condominium Services Agreement (CSA) between a condominium corporation and a service provider.

The arbitrator had ruled that the CSA permitted the service provider to include profit in fee increases during the COVID-19 pandemic when services were curtailed.

The applicant argued the arbitrator erred by allowing the factual matrix to overwhelm the contract language, failing to construe the contract as a whole, and relying on subjective intentions.

The court granted leave to appeal on these extricable questions of law but dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The court also rejected allegations of bias.

The court dismissed IBM Canada Ltd.'s appeal from an endorsement refusing to strike certain paragraphs from Bruce Maule’s Fourth Amended Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found that the pleadings regarding systemic age discrimination and the employment circumstances of other IBM US employees were relevant, not overly broad, and not an abuse of process.

The court held that the pleadings were sufficiently particularized and provable, and that any concerns about discovery scope or prejudice could be managed at trial.

The decision affirms the importance of allowing claims of systemic discrimination to proceed where material facts are pleaded.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought default judgment for possession of a mortgaged property after the defendants, the Estate of Morrison Augustin and Bridget Daniel, failed to defend the proceeding.

The court found the plaintiff had established liability based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence, and granted an order for possession of the property, as well as costs to be assessed.

The plaintiff, Robert Barlow, brought a motion for default judgment against his former employer, 6HARMONICS INC., for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.

The defendant failed to defend the proceeding and was noted in default.

The court found that the employment agreement entitled the plaintiff to nine months’ pay in lieu of notice, and the defendant had only paid two weeks’ pay.

The court awarded the plaintiff $184,166.69 in damages, partial indemnity costs, and pre-judgment interest.

Claims for additional damages for mental distress were rejected due to lack of evidence.

The court dismissed the defendants’ motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s claim to set aside a settlement of statutory accident benefits on the basis of unconscionability.

The court found that its jurisdiction was not ousted by section 280 of the Insurance Act, as the claim was not about entitlement to benefits but about the unconscionability of the settlement itself.

The court also held that the issue of repayment of settlement funds should not be determined on a motion to strike, and that the plaintiff’s pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The claim was not scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Plainview Heights Property Ltd., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, Moreom Khatun and Rehan Uddin, following a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to defend the proceeding.

The court reviewed the requirements for default judgment, including the need for evidence supporting unliquidated damages.

The court found liability established but adjourned the motion to allow the plaintiff to file further evidence regarding damages and mitigation.

The plaintiff, Daynah Allen, sought a date for a motion to strike the Statement of Defence in her long-term disability claim against Sun Life Assurance Company.

The court refused to schedule the motion, finding it meritless and certain to fail, as the defendant filed its defence before being noted in default.

The court also addressed the parties' conduct, discovery issues, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff due to her persistent pursuit of the motion despite repeated judicial warnings.

The plaintiffs, Athanasia (Soula) Bougiotis and CleanMark Group Inc., sought interlocutory relief against the defendant, Jamil Manji, including the return and deletion of confidential information, an injunction restraining harassment, and an Anton Piller order.

The court found that Mr. Manji, a former employee, had engaged in a campaign of harassment and misuse of confidential information after his termination.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald and Anton Piller tests, found a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The court granted the requested relief and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, Michael Christopher Giamou and Loren Andrea Giamou, sought damages for a vendor take-back mortgage (VTB) against Naeem Ahmed, who counterclaimed for civil fraud and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the plaintiffs failed to disclose a foundation leak.

The court denied Ahmed’s request for an adjournment and found that the VTB was enforceable, as Ahmed admitted to its terms and failed to make any payments.

The court held that the foundation leak was a patent defect, discoverable by inspection, and that the plaintiffs had not concealed it.

Ahmed’s counterclaim was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were awarded $320,000 plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest at 18%.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action against two defendants as an abuse of process, finding it to be a collateral attack on a prior Small Claims Court proceeding regarding the enforceability of a settlement agreement.

The court held that the plaintiff's claim was a pre-emptive collateral attack and that allowing it to proceed would force the defendants to fight a "two-front war." The court also addressed the status of the claim against a third defendant, Dixon, and clarified the application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1067 (MTCC 1067) against 1388020 Ontario Corp. (BSA) for arrears of common expenses, rejecting BSA’s defence that it paid in cash under alleged side agreements.

The court found BSA’s evidence not credible, held that the statutory regime under the Condominium Act could not be contracted out of, and ordered vacant possession of the units to MTCC 1067 to permit sale under the lien.

The court also found BSA’s conduct to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to other unit owners.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' "boomerang" motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.

The case involved a dispute over entitlement to shares and options following the termination of a consulting arrangement.

The court found that the contract was not a fixed-term contract and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to unvested shares or options after their engagement ended.

The court also addressed the application of res judicata, finding that the plaintiffs should have sought all relief in a single proceeding, but ultimately decided the matter on the merits of the contract.

The court granted default judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Izhak Aliasi-Sini, against Samir Arora and Equinox Arora Realty Inc. for breach of contract arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The court found that the defendants, having been noted in default, were deemed to admit the facts pleaded.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on the difference between the original and resale prices, legal fees, and punitive damages, with a reduction for lower resale commission.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest, but declined to award prejudgment interest on the full purchase price due to lack of evidence.

Puri Professional Corporation (Puri PC) sought coverage under an errors and omissions insurance policy from Lloyd’s Underwriters and The Sovereign General Insurance Company (the Insurers) for a client's negligence claim related to tax advice.

The Insurers moved for summary judgment to dismiss Puri PC's claim, arguing the alleged wrongful acts occurred before the policy's retroactive date.

Puri PC brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration of coverage, arguing a clerical error in the application should be rectified.

The court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Puri PC's claim, finding the retroactive date exclusion clearly applied and rectification was not warranted as the alleged acts occurred well before the policy's retroactive date.

The plaintiff, Victoria Smith, brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant, Shaun Rothberg (also known as Shaun Rootenberg), to recover damages for breach of trust arising from a romance fraud.

Ms. Smith had previously set the case down for trial, requiring leave to bring the motion.

She also sought to dismiss the action against other defendants with whom she had settled.

The court granted leave for the summary judgment motion, finding it would provide a faster and cheaper resolution than a trial.

The court relied on Mr. Rootenberg's prior criminal conviction for fraud related to the same funds, applying section 22.1 of the Evidence Act and the doctrine of abuse of process to prevent re-litigation of the established facts.

The court found Mr. Rootenberg breached an express or resulting trust.

Judgment was granted against Mr. Rootenberg for $558,456 plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The action against the other defendants was dismissed without costs, as they had settled and Mr. Rootenberg had not filed a cross-claim.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity brought by various Children's Aid Societies (CAS) against Dr. Gideon Koren and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) in the context of the "Motherisk Cases." The court partially granted the motions, striking claims for contribution and indemnity based on the Negligence Act, as the CAS was not found liable to the original plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity based on breach of contract, finding it was not plain and obvious that such claims, including those relying on a principled exception to privity of contract, would fail.

HSC's claim was struck as unopposed.

One of Dr. Koren's crossclaims was struck with leave to amend to properly plead a contract claim.

The court also ordered consolidation of one of Dr. Koren's actions with a related M.M. Action.