Marek Zygmunt Tufman

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.

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 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 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.

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.

This appeal concerned the dismissal of a motion to set aside a default judgment against the appellant, Fida Kasi, related to a breached agreement for the purchase and sale of a residential property.

The appellant argued that the respondent, LIV Communities, was not the correct contracting party or property owner and thus could not have sustained damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's decision that LIV Communities and Landmart Homes were the same entity and that the appellant understood they were dealing with LIV Communities.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim, which the defendant partially opposed.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, allowing most proposed changes to provide context for existing claims, but disallowed irrelevant or inflammatory passages, including details related to Human Rights Tribunal proceedings and characterizations of the defendant.

The action was ordered to proceed under Simplified Procedure.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs thrown away to the defendant, but no costs were awarded for the motion itself.

This appeal concerned the capacity of Paul Tanti to enter into a marriage with Sharon Joseph.

Raymond Tanti, Paul's son, appealed the trial judge's decision that the marriage was valid, arguing his father lacked the requisite capacity.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings, holding that the correct legal test for marriage capacity was applied, which requires understanding the nature of the marriage contract and its duties.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including the discounting of non-contemporaneous expert opinions and the reliance on direct lay witness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the marriage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and interim injunctive relief to compel the defendants to sign a severance application and to enjoin them from interfering with a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) proceeding.

The defendant Sedona Place Co-Ownership Inc. sought an order directing the proceeding to arbitration.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue involving an interest in land and that damages were not an adequate remedy.

The court also granted the mandatory injunction compelling the severance consent, noting the defendants' breach of the option agreement and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' development.

A prohibitory injunction preventing interference with the LPAT hearing was also granted based on the defendants' past conduct and potential irreparable harm.

The action was stayed to allow the parties to proceed to arbitration on agreed terms, with residual court jurisdiction.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

This application concerned claims of oppression and declaratory relief brought by 37 townhouse unit owners against their condominium corporation.

The applicants alleged unfair treatment by a high-rise dominated Board of Directors, specifically regarding charges for interlock paving/steps, retroactive water charges, maintenance/landscaping/snow removal, and amenities, as well as inadequate notice practices.

The court found that the Corporation was responsible for the costs of interlock repairs and retroactive water charges due to lack of proper notice and inconsistent application of the Declaration.

It also declared the Corporation responsible for landscaping and snow removal for townhouse verandas and steps.

While the charge for amenities was deemed valid, the court urged regularization by bylaw and emphasized the need for proper notice delivery methods.

The court found the Board's management to be poor and unprofessional but ultimately concluded that their actions, while close to oppression, did not meet the legal threshold for an oppression remedy.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the entitlement to deposits in a real estate transaction.

The application judge had determined that the respondents were prima facie entitled to the deposits based on the written contracts.

The appellants argued the application should have been converted to an action and raised claims for relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the application was properly authorized under the Rules of Civil Procedure, that there were no material facts in dispute, and that the deposits were true deposits with no evidence of disproportionality or unconscionability.

The respondents, who succeeded in a summary judgment motion dismissing the appellant's claim regarding ownership of coating equipment sold during a bankruptcy proceeding, sought security for costs on the appeal.

The motion judge found no credible evidence supporting the appellant's ownership claim.

The appellant appealed on four grounds, all challenging the motion judge's credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal entirely factual with no basis for establishing a palpable and overriding error, and determined the appellant corporation had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

Lexfund Inc. brought a motion for a limited Mareva injunction to protect funds held in court in an action involving Future Health Inc. and its trustee in bankruptcy, preventing their disbursement without notice to Lexfund.

Lexfund, a creditor of the deceased solicitor Lou Ferro (whose practice was intertwined with Future Health), alleged fraud and conspiracy regarding loans made to Ferro.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and an inferred risk of asset dissipation.

The court granted a modified injunction, ordering $50,000 of the approximately $125,000 in court to be paid to Ellen Helden, with the balance remaining in court pending further order and notice to Lexfund.

The judge also appointed himself case management judge for related Lexfund actions.

The plaintiff, Lesia Livska, sought to add Francesca Molina as a defendant and extend the time for setting the action down for trial, following an assault at a bar.

The defendant Amalia Molina sought to set aside a noting in default, and the defendant My Apartment Mississauga sought to dismiss the action.

The court granted the plaintiff's requests, setting aside the noting in default for Amalia, adding Francesca as a defendant under the misnomer doctrine, and extending the set-down date, emphasizing the resolution of matters on their merits.