Loretta P. Merritt

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 plaintiff law firm brought an undefended motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid legal fees from a former client.

The defendant had retained the plaintiff for family law and child protection matters but stopped paying her invoices after the firm refused to grant further courtesy discounts.

The court found this to be a straightforward collection matter with no genuine issue requiring a trial, and granted judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $58,281.68 plus costs.

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.

At the outset of a civil trial, the plaintiff sought judgment enforcing a settlement arising from consolidated real-estate related disputes over property proceeds and alleged misappropriation of funds.

The court found there was a binding second settlement requiring the defendants to pay $250,000 by instalments, provide post-dated cheques, and execute a consent to judgment upon default.

The court rejected the defendants' evidence of alleged wire transfers and deposits as false and inconsistent with both the settlement terms and counsel's banking records.

Judgment was granted for $250,000 under Rule 49.09, and full indemnity costs were awarded because the defendants submitted false evidence and their underlying conduct warranted sanction.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for misappropriation of funds related to a syndicated construction loan.

The court granted summary judgment against the corporate defendants and one individual defendant, finding no genuine issue for trial and declaring the damages resulted from fraud.

However, the court dismissed the motion against two other individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of their claim against them more than two years before they were added to the action, meaning the limitation period had expired.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision upholding the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was initiated after a neurologist submitted a medical condition report indicating the appellant suffered a prolonged loss of consciousness, possibly a seizure or syncope.

The appellant argued the episode was merely a nap and challenged the LAT's refusal to grant a confidentiality order, its factual findings, and its procedural fairness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the LAT's factual findings and no errors of law or procedural fairness in its handling of the hearing or the reconsideration request.

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.

The United Jewish Appeal of Greater Toronto (UJA) brought motions for default judgment against 100181947 Ontario Inc. o/a TLC Worldwide Inc. (TLC) and Daljit Sohal, and to enforce a settlement against Ryan Singh.

UJA also sought orders validating service on Singh and for substituted service on Mohammed Ashfaq and Prestige Worldwide Transportation Network LLC.

The court granted default judgment against TLC and Singh for breach of contract in the amount of $68,260.00 plus interest, validated service on Singh, and ordered substituted service on Ashfaq and Prestige.

However, the court declined to grant default judgment against Sohal, finding that the claim for unjust enrichment was not sufficiently made out as there was no incontrovertible evidence that Sohal personally received the benefit.

This case involved two applications concerning a family business dispute.

Arif Al-Ali (father) sought declarations that Anwar Al-Ali (son) breached his duties under a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property (POA) and committed corporate oppression by wrongfully transferring shares and removing the father from corporate positions in Poppa Corn Corporation.

Anwar Al-Ali (son) brought a cross-application seeking specific performance or damages related to an agreement for 50% of Poppa Corn shares in exchange for work in Romania.

The court found that the son breached his fiduciary duties under the POA and that his actions constituted corporate oppression.

The court also determined that the son was not entitled to the shares as he had already been compensated in cash for his work in Romania, and his cross-application was statute-barred.

The father's alleged oppression of the son was dismissed.

The applicant, convicted of impaired driving in New York, sought to quash the automatic one-year suspension of his Ontario driver's licence under section 41 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the Registrar erred by not considering equivalency to Ontario offences, breaching natural justice, and violating Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the suspension was automatic by operation of law, not discretionary, and did not engage Charter rights related to liberty, mobility, or cruel and unusual punishment, nor did it violate principles of natural justice or double criminality.

This is a costs endorsement following a 12-day jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case.

The Plaintiff, Kyriaki Moustakis, was awarded $55,252.61 in net damages and sought substantial indemnity costs, having beaten her Rule 49 offer to settle.

The Defendant, Reynaldo Agbuya, opposed the quantum of costs and sought costs thrown away due to a late amendment by the Plaintiff.

The court awarded the Plaintiff $378,000 in costs (partial indemnity to the offer date, substantial thereafter) and $3,252.79 in prejudgment interest.

The Defendant was awarded $10,000 in full indemnity costs for the costs thrown away.

The court found the Plaintiff's choice of ordinary procedure reasonable, rejected arguments of "trial by ambush" and ATE insurance influence, and disallowed costs for focus groups.