Marshall Reinhart

The appellants contracted with the respondent to repair fire damage to their property.

The project was overseen by a third party who fraudulently requested and retained personal payments from the appellants.

The trial judge found the appellants liable to the respondent for the outstanding contract amount, concluding the third party lacked actual or ostensible authority to receive personal payments on the respondent's behalf.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's application of the governing principles of ostensible authority.

The defendant sought leave to issue a third-party claim against Brenda Petty and Brenda Petty Unlimited LLC, arguing that the plaintiffs' expert report shifted the focus to Petty's negligence and the defendant's vicarious liability.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing prejudice due to delay and ongoing interest payments on a line of credit.

The court, applying principles from Farrell v Costco Wholesale and Fisher v Amherstburg, found no undue prejudice to the plaintiffs, as delay and expense alone do not constitute prejudice, especially when the action has not been set down for trial.

The court emphasized the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of conflicting decisions, concluding that all related issues should be tried together.

The motion for leave to issue a third-party claim was granted.

The plaintiffs, an Ontario corporation and its sole shareholder, initiated an action against two French residents for alleged negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the purchase of a French medical device manufacturer.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and that France was a clearly more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The court found that the alleged tort of misrepresentation occurred in France, where the misinformation was received and acted upon, not in Ontario where the plaintiffs felt the impact or signed some documents.

Consequently, the court determined there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario and granted the defendants' motion, staying the action.

The case involved a dispute between brothers Domenic, Salvatore, and Bruno Rosso, and their wives, concerning minutes of settlement.

Bruno moved to enforce the minutes, alleging Domenic breached them.

Domenic cross-moved to set aside the minutes, claiming duress, fraudulent misrepresentation, or improvidence, and also arguing they were null and void under a specific contractual clause.

The court found that Domenic and Carmelina (Domenic's wife and a "Settling Party") validly exercised their contractual right under the minutes of settlement to declare them null and void due to an uncured default.

The court dismissed Bruno's motion to enforce and granted Domenic's cross-motion to set aside the minutes of settlement on this contractual basis, rejecting Domenic's other claims of duress, misrepresentation, and improvidence due to lack of credible evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to deliver a new affidavit after cross-examinations for use on the defendants’ pending jurisdiction motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, the plaintiffs provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in tendering the affidavit, and granting leave would cause undue prejudice and delay, contrary to the principles of efficient litigation.

The Plaintiff, a commercial lender, sought summary judgment against John McCrindle, the personal guarantor of a defaulted business loan.

The co-defendant, 1521105 Ontario Inc. o/a System Fitness, was already subject to a default judgment.

Despite the respondent's counsel having no instructions, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting admissions in the respondent's Statement of Defence and the plaintiff's supporting evidence.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding loan balance plus contractual interest and costs, affirming that partial summary judgment is appropriate when there is no risk of conflicting findings.

The plaintiff brought a motion without notice to note the defendant, Toronto District School Board (TDSB), in default after serving an amended statement of claim by email.

The TDSB's counsel had previously accepted email service for the original statement of claim and attended case conferences, but no statement of defence was filed.

The Registrar rejected the default request, stating the amended claim required personal service.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no circumstances rendering service of the motion impracticable or unnecessary.

The judge emphasized that granting such a motion without notice would likely lead to further proceedings to set aside the default, contrary to the objectives of the Rules of Civil Procedure to secure a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination on the merits.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim more than seven years after commencing an action for nuisance and trespass against their neighbour.

The proposed amendments sought to add a new plaintiff, new causes of action relating to windows and a venting system, and new heads of damages.

The court denied leave for the substantive amendments, finding that they asserted new causes of action that were statute-barred and that the unexplained seven-year delay gave rise to a presumption of non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Leave was granted only for minor, unopposed amendments.

The applicant sought a declaration that a property transferred by the deceased mother to the respondent son was held in a resulting trust for the estate, and an order requiring the respondent to pass accounts.

The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence showing the mother intended to gift the property to the respondent, who had lived with and cared for her.

The request to pass accounts was dismissed as statute-barred and unfair due to an eight-year delay, though the respondent was ordered to provide a sworn statement of the deceased's assets at the time of death.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a declaration and compliance order against a unit owner and her tenant for repeated breaches of noise rules.

The tenant, Ms. Kalicharan, was found to have created excessive noise disturbing a neighbour, and the owner, Ms. Lyn, was responsible for ensuring tenant compliance.

The court found the corporation's enforcement discretion was exercised reasonably and in good faith, granting the declaration and compliance order, but declined to order tenancy termination as that falls under the Landlord and Tenant Board's jurisdiction.

Costs were to be addressed separately.

The plaintiff, a promising clarinetist, applied to a prestigious music conservatory and was offered a full scholarship.

The defendant, his girlfriend at the time, intercepted the acceptance email, declined the offer in his name, and sent him a fake rejection email to prevent him from moving away.

The plaintiff sued for deceit and the defendant was noted in default.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding $300,000 in general damages for loss of educational opportunity and delayed career entry, plus $25,000 in aggravated damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment against two corporate defendants for $180,054.08, alleging conversion and fraud related to a power of sale and a second mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was insufficient evidence to determine the exact amounts owing to the second mortgagee or the secured amount of her assigned mortgage.

The court emphasized that a complete record and full accounting were necessary, and partial summary judgment would not avoid a full trial given the preliminary stage of the action and other related proceedings.

The applicant sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file additional affidavit materials for a pending partial summary judgment motion, after cross-examining the respondents' affiant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not including the evidence initially.

The court emphasized that Rule 39.02(2) is not intended to correct deficiencies highlighted by cross-examination or to bolster a case due to an unexpected adjournment, and that parties are obliged to put their best case forward before cross-examination.