Marek Zygmunt Tufman

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB had ordered the tenant's eviction because the landlord entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a purchaser who intended to occupy the unit.

The tenant appealed on four grounds, including misnomer of the landlord, refusal of an adjournment, and the subsequent termination of the purchase agreement due to the tenant's refusal to vacate.

The Divisional Court found that none of the grounds raised a question of law and that the appeal was an abuse of process designed to game the system and frustrate the sale.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay of eviction was vacated.

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 moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated January 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to compel a non-party (American Express) to produce a credit card statement and for punitive damages against the defendant for alleged misconduct.

This motion followed a previous unsuccessful attempt by the plaintiff to obtain the same document directly from the defendant, which was dismissed by another Associate Justice who also ordered that further discovery-related motions required leave.

The court dismissed the current motion, finding that leave was required and had already been effectively denied, applying principles of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The court also found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

The plaintiff, Suzana Kovacevic, brought a motion to compel the defendant, Emir Kovacevic, to produce a credit card statement from December 2014, alleging it would corroborate a romantic relationship and Skype messages.

The court denied leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had not diligently exercised discovery rights after the action was set down for trial.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the motion on its merits, determining the document was not relevant to any pleaded issue, there was no cogent evidence it still existed within the defendant's possession, and its probative value was disproportionate to the effort of obtaining it in a simplified procedure action.

Window Force Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment against TriCity Windows and Doors for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to unpaid invoices and services.

TriCity counterclaimed for damages due to alleged delays and poor quality of windows.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the terms of the unwritten contract, the quality of goods, delivery issues, mitigation efforts, and the credibility of witnesses.

The court determined that the evidence was insufficient to make necessary findings of fact and credibility summarily, and that a full trial with viva voce evidence and cross-examinations was required for a fair and just adjudication.

The appellant, Bernard Drag, appealed a lower court order for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a residential property.

Drag argued the APS became null and void because the home inspection condition was not waived by the contractual deadline.

The trial judge found that Drag's agent breached the contractual duty of honest performance by misrepresenting an accepted amending agreement and Drag's unavailability, which delayed and compromised the respondent's ability to deliver the waiver on time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent relied on these misrepresentations to his detriment, preventing the appellant from insisting on strict adherence to the timing condition.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order for specific performance was affirmed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Plaintiff's motions in a prior decision.

The parties were unable to agree on costs, and the Plaintiff, who was self-represented, failed to deliver written costs submissions despite being given an extension.

The court declined to grant further extensions, noting the Plaintiff's capability as a self-represented litigant.

The court then proceeded to fix costs, reducing the amounts sought by the Defendant and the non-party, AB Sciex Ltd., finding their requested time expenditures to be beyond what was reasonably anticipated given the complexity of the issues.

The Plaintiff was ordered to pay fixed costs to both the Defendant and AB Sciex Ltd.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction, specifically finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The appellants, Ontario-incorporated companies, argued the motion judge erred in the jurisdictional analysis and improperly conducted a disguised summary judgment/issue determination motion.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the respondents, domiciled outside Ontario with business primarily in Singapore, lacked a sufficient connection to Ontario.

The court found the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of torts or contract breaches occurring in Ontario, or to rebut the presumption against jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The Appellant father appealed the relocation and decision-making portions of a final order from the Ontario Court of Justice, which had granted primary residence and sole decision-making for the child to the Respondent mother and allowed her to relocate to Poland.

The father argued the trial judge erred in finding the mother could be deported, failing to consider all evidence, and not properly applying the child's best interests.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law, including the finding that the mother's precarious immigration status and her plan for the child in Poland were relevant to the child's best interests.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought a motion for a stay of a Divisional Court costs order, pending the determination of its motion for leave to appeal the Divisional Court's substantive decision.

The Divisional Court had allegedly ruled on costs without affording parties an opportunity for submissions.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, applying the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald.

The court found a serious issue regarding both the substantive decision and the costs order, irreparable harm to the LSO if required to pay out monies that might be unrecoverable, and that the balance of convenience favored the stay, especially given its limited duration and the LSO's automatic entitlement to a stay if leave to appeal is granted.

The self-represented plaintiff brought motions seeking to enforce a prior production order against a non-party, Sciex, and for leave to examine three former Sciex employees and the defendant's wife for discovery.

The court dismissed the motion for production, finding that Sciex had complied with the order and could not produce documents that did not exist.

The court also dismissed the motions for leave to examine the non-parties, concluding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly as she had already obtained the relevant information from other sources and it would not be unfair to require her to proceed to trial without the examinations.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) investigated a cheating scandal involving the November 2021 licensing exams.

Based on statistical anomalies, the LSO voided the applicants' exam results and their registration in the licensing process without holding a hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that while voiding the compromised exams was a reasonable administrative measure, voiding the applicants' registration and imposing regulatory sanctions without a hearing breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the punitive sanctions and remitted the matters to the LSO.

The appellants sought to set aside a 2009 default judgment, arguing that a subsequent 2019 release, related to other actions, also released the default judgment.

The motion judge rejected this interpretation, finding the release unambiguously did not refer to the 2009 default judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the release was not ambiguous and the contra proferentem principle did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering her to pay unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under section 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.

Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate apparent grounds for relief because she failed to pursue an adequate alternative remedy before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and she failed to show that the delay would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent employee.

The defendants, Keysar Nasr and Amal Nasr, moved to set aside a 2009 default judgment obtained by HSBC Bank Canada, arguing that a release executed in 2019 in the context of other litigation (the 2012 and 2014 actions) extinguished the judgment debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the release, when interpreted objectively and considering the factual matrix, was not intended to cover the pre-existing 2009 default judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further documentary production from the defendant and from a non-party, her former employer AB Sciex Ltd. The plaintiff sought the defendant's unredacted bank statement to corroborate a past romantic relationship, which the defendant agreed to produce.

The plaintiff also sought HR records and video footage from the non-party employer relating to harassment complaints made by the defendant and the termination of her employment.

The court ordered the non-party to produce records of the harassment investigations and correspondence regarding the plaintiff's termination, finding them relevant to her claims of malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of mental distress, but dismissed the requests for other HR records and video footage.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding she breached a settlement agreement and ordering her to repay $15,216.00 to the respondent.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the conclusion that the applicant breached the settlement by advancing resolved claims in a civil action was manifestly reasonable.

This appeal concerns the Divisional Court's quashing of three Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions, which had declared Tomasz Turkiewicz Custom Masonry Homes (TTCMH) and Brickpol Masonry Corporation (Mr. Turkiewicz's former business) a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, bound TTCMH to a collective agreement, and awarded damages to the Unions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in its application of the reasonableness standard of review, as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov.

The Court of Appeal held that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable, as the Board properly considered the erosion of bargaining rights as a valid labour relations purpose for the related employer declaration, adequately addressed the hiatus between businesses, and made a reasonable damages award.

The appeal was allowed, and the OLRB decisions were restored.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to an alleged infringement of his s. 11(b) right to a speedy trial.

The total delay from the information to the anticipated trial conclusion was 1,120 days.

The court deducted 349 days for defence-caused delay and 140 days for COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances.

The resulting net delay of 631 days (20.74 months) exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court matters.

The Crown failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation efforts for the post-COVID reopening delay.

Consequently, the court granted a stay of proceedings.