Marek Z. Tufman

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its administrative decision to void the registrations of 20 licensing candidates implicated in a cheating scandal.

The Divisional Court had found the LSO breached procedural fairness by not holding oral hearings before voiding the registrations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the Baker factors and conflated the LSO's administrative licensing functions with its disciplinary good character functions.

The Court held that the written process provided by the LSO, which included disclosure and multiple opportunities to respond, satisfied the duty of procedural fairness.

The Court also admitted new evidence and found the Divisional Court breached procedural fairness by making costs orders without allowing submissions.

The plaintiff, a contractor, sued the defendant homeowner for unpaid contracting fees of $35,729.63 for building a log home.

The defendant counterclaimed against the contractor and the log home kit supplier for $124,203.30, alleging breach of contract due to delays and construction deficiencies.

The court found that the defendant homeowner, who acted as his own general contractor, was responsible for the delays and had wrongfully repudiated the contract by locking the contractor out of the site.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for the unpaid balance and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The buyer (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim) sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The seller (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) argued the agreement was null and void because the buyer failed to waive a home inspection condition before the deadline.

The court found that the seller's real estate agent made misrepresentations to the buyer regarding the seller's availability to sign an amending agreement and his agreement to a price abatement.

These misrepresentations breached the duty of honest contractual performance and caused the buyer to delay delivering the waiver.

As a result, the seller could not rely on the expiry of the condition period.

The court granted specific performance to the buyer.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages relating to coating equipment allegedly sold during a bankruptcy proceeding.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of the equipment and alleged it was unlawfully sold by the defendants.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding possession but determined the ownership issue could be fairly adjudicated on the record.

Due to a lack of supporting documentation, contradictory evidence, and failure to answer undertakings, the court concluded the plaintiff did not own the equipment.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for mental distress, alleging the defendant congregation breached a contract by failing to timely issue an Interment Rights Certificate.

The plaintiffs claimed this delay prevented them from obtaining an order to exhume their father's remains in Manitoba for re-burial in Ontario.

The court found that the certificate was not legally required to apply for the disinterment order under Manitoba's Public Health Act.

As the plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of contract caused the delay and resulting mental distress, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order appointing it as Estate Trustee during Litigation for an intestate estate.

The PGT argued it should be a trustee of last resort and noted that it had not consented to the appointment, as required by the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

The court found that appointing one of the disputing beneficiaries would escalate the conflict.

The court granted the motion, removed the PGT, and appointed a neutral estates lawyer as Estate Trustee during Litigation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $16,314.93.

The plaintiff conceded the defendant's entitlement to costs and the reasonableness of the hourly rates, but disputed the number of hours claimed.

The court found the hours claimed for motion preparation and drafting the bill of costs to be somewhat excessive, and fixed the all-inclusive costs award at $13,000.

The defendant security company brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff jewellery store's claim for damages following a theft.

The defendant relied on an exclusion clause in their standard form commercial contract.

The plaintiff argued the clause was unenforceable because its principal had limited English proficiency and the clause was not explained.

Applying the Tercon framework, the court found the exclusion clause was clear, applied to the circumstances, was not unconscionable in a commercial setting, and did not violate public policy.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

Following a family law motion addressing disclosure, child support, interim disbursements, and the sale of a jointly owned property, the court determined costs.

The responding party on the underlying motion had been largely successful and had made reasonable offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the opposing party’s resistance to disclosure and last‑minute concessions increased the costs of the litigation, although the conduct did not amount to bad faith.

While the successful party sought full recovery costs exceeding $76,000, the court held that such an amount would be disproportionate to the issues.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 payable from the opposing party’s share of the sale proceeds of the property or before trial.

The respondent father obtained an Ontario divorce order after the parties’ separation and ongoing international custody dispute involving their child, who had been retained in Poland by the mother.

The mother moved to set aside the divorce order on the basis that it was granted before the expiry of the 60‑day period to file an answer under the Family Law Rules.

The court acknowledged the procedural irregularity but held that the moving party remained in contempt of prior Ontario orders requiring the return of the child and production of medical records.

The court found it would be an abuse of process to allow the motion while the contempt continued and where the practical effect would facilitate further defiance of the Ontario custody order.

The motion was stayed pending the mother purging her contempt and the matter was referred for possible international judicial communication with Polish courts.

The moving party mother brought a motion for temporary child support, section 7 expenses, and interim disbursements to obtain an expert income report.

The responding party father, who is self-employed, persistently failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and claimed an income of approximately $28,000, despite having expenses of over $53,000.

The court imputed the father's income at $53,076 based on his stated expenses and ordered him to pay table child support and 70% of the child's post-secondary expenses.

The court also ordered the father to pay $15,000 in interim disbursements to allow the mother to retain an expert to determine his true income.