Mark A. Klaiman

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and to seize its permits and plates.

The Registrar refused the application on the basis that the applicant was related to another trucking company whose CVOR certificate had been cancelled due to a poor safety record and outstanding fines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's principals were previously 50% owners and managers of the cancelled company, establishing that the two corporations were related under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was created to continue the cancelled company's operations while avoiding its debts and safety record.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to refuse the CVOR certificate and carry out the seizure order.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by a defendant in respect of a small business loan to a corporation operating a pub.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was conditional upon finalizing a business arrangement with another participant and alternatively that the document was to be held in escrow.

The court held that the guarantee was expressly described as continuing, absolute, and unconditional and required any alteration or waiver to be in writing.

Applying the parol evidence rule and authorities from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court found that alleged oral conditions or collateral agreements could not vary the written terms of the guarantee.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the bank for the guaranteed amount plus interest.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing its claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the discoverability of the claim was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Court noted there was no evidence the appellant suffered loss or damage before selling the property in March 2010.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court order regarding their compliance with a municipal by-law.

The sole issue on appeal was whether a chain link fence could be considered a 'principal structure' under section 5.16.6 of the by-law.

The Court of Appeal held that, reading the by-law as a whole, a principal structure must have a wall, and a chain link fence does not constitute a wall.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff creditor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to impose liability on multiple defendants arising from unpaid invoices for tires supplied to a corporate purchaser.

The plaintiff relied on alleged non‑compliance with the Bulk Sales Act and alleged fraudulent conveyances arising from the sale of the debtor company.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the Bulk Sales Act claim had not been pleaded and the evidentiary record did not establish fraudulent conveyance or liability of the additional defendants.

On a cross‑motion, certain defendants successfully sought to vacate a certificate of pending litigation and dissolve a Mareva injunction obtained ex parte, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an interest in land or a strong prima facie case with risk of asset dissipation.

Franchisee applicants sought declaratory relief under Rule 14 alleging the franchisor failed to provide statutory disclosure required under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 and Alberta’s Franchises Act in connection with three restaurant franchises.

They sought rescission of the franchise agreements and recovery of invested funds.

The court found that the central issue—whether disclosure was actually provided and when—turned on sharply conflicting affidavit evidence and credibility disputes.

Because these issues required viva voce evidence and credibility findings, they could not be resolved on an application.

The court ordered that the application proceed to trial and be treated as an action, with damages and disclosure adequacy issues to be determined at trial.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against the WSIB and its service provider regarding his labour market re-entry program.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent and dismissed most of the allegations against the corporate respondents, including reprisal and general unfairness.

However, the Tribunal permitted the allegations concerning a delay in providing disability accommodation and a threat related to family status to continue.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to appoint a monitor over the plaintiff charity's financial affairs, as well as the associated costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The court also found no error in principle in the motion judge's discretionary costs award.

The plaintiff was awarded $50,000 in damages by a jury following a motor vehicle accident, despite claiming over $1 million.

The trial judge initially set aside the verdict and awarded the plaintiff $196,695 in costs.

The Court of Appeal previously reinstated the jury verdict and remitted the costs issue.

The trial judge again awarded $196,695 in costs.

The defendants appealed the second costs order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principle of proportionality, and reduced the costs award to $166,695.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because a key witness would be overseas attending a wedding.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the witness could fly back for the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's counsel had erred in agreeing to the hearing date without fully consulting his client, and that it would be unfair to proceed without the key witness.

The Tribunal concluded these were extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment and directed the parties to provide new availability.

A dispute arose over the interpretation of a bonus provision in an independent consultant agreement between a brokerage manager and an insurance brokerage.

The plaintiff argued that once the contractual production threshold was met, the bonus percentage applied to total production, while the defendants argued it applied only to production above the threshold.

The court interpreted the contract as granting a bonus calculated on total production once the threshold was achieved, emphasizing the wording of the agreement and the factual matrix.

In the alternative, the court held that any ambiguity would be resolved against the drafter under the doctrine of contra proferentem.

The plaintiff recovered unpaid bonus commissions but was denied additional damages for lost income due to failure to mitigate.

The defendants’ counterclaim alleging breach of fiduciary duty and solicitation was dismissed for lack of evidence.

A non-share corporation operating a mosque and community centre experienced an internal governance dispute among its members, leading to litigation.

After reviewing affidavit evidence and a monitor’s report, the court highlighted corporate governance errors committed by both sides under Canadian corporate law.

The court encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute without judicial determination.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement providing for an interim executive committee and future elections.

The court approved the settlement, the monitor’s report and activities, and the monitor’s fees.

In an undefended civil action, nightclub patrons sought damages after one plaintiff was assaulted by unidentified customers on the premises.

The court proceeded under the Rules of Civil Procedure after striking the defence and jury notice for non-compliance with a prior order requiring corporate defendants to appoint counsel or obtain leave for representation.

Liability was effectively established on deemed facts grounded in alleged breaches of occupiers' and liquor-service duties.

The court awarded non-pecuniary damages, past income loss, and Family Law Act damages, plus partial indemnity costs and pre- and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

These consolidated appeals addressed the interpretation and application of the amended summary judgment regime under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal held that summary judgment may be granted not only where claims or defences are without merit or the parties agree, but also where the motion judge can achieve a full appreciation of the evidence and issues required to make dispositive findings on the motion record, possibly supplemented by limited oral evidence.

The court articulated the “full appreciation” test, confirmed that the standard of review on whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial is correctness, and explained the proper use of the new powers to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, draw inferences, and hear oral evidence on discrete issues.

Applying those principles, the court dismissed the Combined Air, Misek, and Parker appeals, dismissed the Mauldin appeal, and allowed the Bruno appeal by setting aside summary judgment and dismissing the motion.

The appellant vendor appealed a decision granting the respondent purchaser the right to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction condominium unit and the return of his deposits.

The vendor had failed to provide occupancy by the specified closing date and argued the agreement implicitly allowed for extensions until the unit was substantially completed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement did not grant the vendor a unilateral right to extend the closing date and that the purchaser had not waived his right to terminate.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's order for a re-trial, which was based on a finding that the jury's answers regarding damages were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the jury's answers were not inconsistent and that there was evidence to support their findings on past and future wage loss and general damages.

The jury's verdict was reinstated, and the issue of costs was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion regarding property damage allegedly caused by the negligent construction of neighbouring homes.

They argued the motions judge failed to apply the new, more flexible Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court agreed the reasons were inadequate but upheld the dismissal, finding significant conflicting evidence regarding personal liability, independent contractor liability, and damages that required a trial.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment regarding property damage caused by the defendants' construction.

The motions judge had dismissed the summary judgment motion with a one-sentence endorsement citing 'numerous conflicts in the evidence' without further explanation.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to the inadequacy of the reasons provided and the failure to apply the newly amended Rule 20 for summary judgments.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that it had unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of a commercial lease.

The application judge found as a fact that the landlord's sole interest in refusing consent was to secure a higher rent because the current rent was below market value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that this finding of fact was open to the application judge, though it noted that a demand for a rent increase is not always an unreasonable response to an assignment request.