Mark A. De Sanctis

The applicant, founder of a carpentry business, sought an oppression remedy against the respondent, the younger active manager and 49% shareholder.

The parties had entered into a unanimous shareholders' agreement to transition the business to the respondent while completing existing projects.

The respondent breached the agreement and his fiduciary duties by usurping the company's employees for his new competing business, failing to maintain proper financial records, and causing the original company to fail.

The court found the respondent liable for oppression and ordered him and his new company to jointly and severally disgorge $2,248,328 in profits.

The appellants challenged summary judgment enforcing a $2.1 million promissory note, arguing procedural unfairness, evidentiary error, and lack of consideration.

The court rejected all grounds and upheld enforceability against both appellants.

The moving party sought panel review after a chambers judge refused to lift an automatic stay pending appeal.

Applying the deferential review framework for s. 7(5) CJA panel review, the court found no error in principle or unreasonable result and dismissed the review motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment pursuant to written Minutes of Settlement in a construction lien action.

The defendant disputed the plaintiff's claim for interest on outstanding invoices and argued the parties were not ad idem on essential terms.

The court found that a valid settlement agreement existed and that the parties had agreed to payment of $593,522.93 due on September 30, 2024.

The court granted judgment for the outstanding amount plus contractual interest from the due date, rejecting the defendant's argument that the Full and Final Mutual Release precluded interest accrual.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal and a related costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the City of Vaughan and $5,000 to the other responding parties.

The plaintiff, Jaymat Limited, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Vivo Pizza Pasta Franchising Inc. and Pino Trichilo, for repayment of advances made in respect of several restaurant locations.

The court found that the advances, initially ambiguous as to whether they were loans or equity, were ultimately confirmed as loans by a promissory note signed in October 2021.

The court held that both defendants received consideration for signing the note, and that the note was enforceable.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $2,100,000 plus interest, with leave to amend the corporate defendant’s name.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash O. Reg. 382/19, which amended transitional rules for planning appeals before the Ontario Land Tribunal, arguing it was ultra vires its enabling statute.

The regulation reimposed a more restrictive procedural regime on third-party appeals of municipal planning decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Attorney General had broad, express statutory authority under s. 43.1 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 to make the transitional regulation.

The court held the regulation was consistent with the enabling statute and did not improperly deprive the applicants of vested substantive rights.

The court also declined to address procedural fairness issues, finding them premature as they should be raised in the applicants' pending motion for leave to appeal.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sued for unpaid commissions under an Exclusive Sales Agreement (ESA) for marketing custom-built homes.

The ESA mistakenly named a non-existent corporation, 'Castel Homes', as the builder.

The court rectified the ESA to name 'Castel Homes Inc.' as the contracting party, rejecting the defendants' argument that a different related corporation, Allure Inc., should be the party.

The court held that the plaintiff's 2% commission was to be calculated on the sale price excluding HST, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to commissions for two sales that failed to close.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the individual director for inducing breach of contract and against Allure Inc. for unjust enrichment, finding the contract provided a juristic reason for any enrichment.

The plaintiff was awarded $161,720 in damages against Castel Homes Inc.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion to strike out parts of an affidavit filed by the applicants in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the vires of O. Reg. 382/19.

The moving party argued the affidavit contained inadmissible legal argument, opinion, and irrelevant evidence that did not fall within the narrow exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review.

The court adopted a hybrid approach, striking out paragraphs containing clear legal argument and opinion, while adjourning the balance of the motion to the panel hearing the application on its merits.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable in nuisance and negligence for the migration of chemical contaminants from its property to the respondent's property.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to assess incremental damage caused after the appellant had knowledge of the migration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not advance a fundamentally new theory of defence that was neither pleaded nor supported by evidence at trial.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary award of prejudgment interest.

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff approximately $174,000 in damages for a failed real estate transaction, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle for $135,000 plus costs, which the defendants did not accept.

Because the final judgment was considerably more favourable than the plaintiff's offer, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 all inclusive, and prejudgment interest of $7,099.57 was also awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant failed to close on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant had struck out the financing condition but was ultimately unable to obtain a mortgage.

The plaintiff re-listed and sold the property for a lower price.

The court found the defendant in breach of the agreement and awarded the plaintiff damages for the difference in purchase price and carrying costs, less the deposit already paid.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment decision finding he unjustifiably repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The purchaser argued the vendors failed to provide a survey complying with the agreement, rendering it null and void.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the survey was not essential to the transaction or the purchaser's ability to close, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant registered a claim for lien against the respondents' property.

The motion judge discharged the lien under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act, finding it was registered out of time because the contract work was completed and fully invoiced 11 months prior.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in relying on the invoice and applying the wrong standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual conclusions and holding that the correct underlying test was applied.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal from a decision of Charney J. The Divisional Court directed that the appeal proceed by ZOOM videoconference and provided procedural directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and costs outlines.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for less than the judgment amount.

The court awarded elevated costs of $80,000 to the plaintiffs, citing the defendant's inappropriate conduct, which included making unfounded allegations of fraud and deceit against the plaintiffs' counsel.

The plaintiffs, Paul J. Hannivan and Pamela J. Hannivan, sued the defendant, Muhammad Wasi, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after Wasi repudiated the deal, alleging the Hannivans failed to provide a proper survey.

The Hannivans moved for summary judgment on their claim for damages and on Wasi's counterclaim for the return of his deposit.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the Hannivans, finding that the survey issue was not essential to the transaction and did not entitle Wasi to repudiate the agreement.

The defendant property owner brought a motion under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act to discharge a claim for lien registered by the plaintiff adjacent landowner.

The court found that while there were triable issues regarding whether the plaintiff was a 'contractor' and the previous owner an 'owner' under the Act, the lien was not preserved within the strict 45-day time limit under s. 31.

The evidence showed the contract work was completed more than a year before the lien was registered.

The motion was granted and the lien discharged.

The court determined costs following a 106-day individual assessment trial in a class action where the plaintiff recovered $50,000 after claiming $60,000,000.

The plaintiff sought over $7,000,000 in costs, including nearly $3,000,000 in interest on litigation loans.

The court ruled that interest on litigation loans is not a recoverable disbursement.

Finding that the plaintiff unreasonably rejected multiple offers to settle from the defendants, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to the date of the defendants' first offer in 2009, and awarded the defendants their partial indemnity costs thereafter, resulting in a net costs award of over $2.3 million payable by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought to deny costs to the successful defendants following a dismissed motion regarding civil jury challenges for cause.

The plaintiff argued the motion was a test case, raised novel issues, and involved public interest litigation.

The court rejected the public interest and test case arguments, noting the plaintiff had a direct pecuniary interest in the personal injury action.

However, recognizing the technical novelty of the motion, the court applied a 15% reduction to the defendants' partial indemnity costs, awarding $19,918.36 to two defendants and $7,853.24 to another.