Marshall Reinhart

The plaintiff grandmother sued her defendant grandson to recover funds she allegedly loaned him to pay estate debts and repair a home.

She brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim to add allegations of undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive damages, as well as to plead evidence obtained during discovery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it plain and obvious that the proposed amendments could not succeed because undue influence is not a stand-alone cause of action, the material facts for breach of fiduciary duty were not pleaded, and there was no independent actionable wrong to support punitive damages.

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 appellant, a tenant operating an auto body repair shop on the main floor of a mixed-use building, appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by the Toronto Fire Services.

The orders were issued due to fire safety risks posed by the combination of the industrial occupancy and residential units on the second floor.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the orders were substantively necessary for fire safety, the Order to Close was invalid because the Fire Marshal's Extension of Delegation of Authority did not explicitly delegate the power to issue such orders to Deputy Fire Chiefs.

Consequently, the Commission confirmed the Inspection Order with a modified compliance date but rescinded the Order to Close.

The respondent issued an Order to Close an auto repair shop located on the ground floor of a building with residential units above.

The appellant appealed the order, which triggered an automatic stay.

The respondent moved to lift the stay pending the hearing.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, finding that the co-location of the auto repair shop and residential units posed a significant fire safety risk due to the presence of flammable liquids, combustible materials, and ignition sources, making it necessary in the interest of public safety to lift the stay.

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 landlord appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) orders that awarded the tenant damages and ordered the return of a dog.

The landlord had not attended the initial hearing because the tenant provided an incorrect mailing address.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LTB denied the landlord procedural fairness by failing to inquire into service and by improperly dismissing her request for review.

Furthermore, the court held that the LTB erred in law by exceeding its statutory jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act when it made orders regarding the return of the tenant's dog and awarded damages far exceeding the amount claimed.

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.

The plaintiff commenced a defamation action in Ontario in 2010 against the defendants.

In 2011, the plaintiff commenced a parallel action in Korea for the same defamation claims.

The Korean action was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to comply with an order to post security for costs.

The defendants brought a motion in Ontario to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process and forum non conveniens.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's attempt to continue the Ontario action after his Korean action was dismissed on the merits constituted an abuse of process.

The action was permanently stayed and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant, a cook, alleged he experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin, claiming he was denied promotions, subjected to racist comments, and discriminatorily terminated following a verbal altercation with a manager.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence, concluding the applicant never applied for a promotion and was terminated for insubordination rather than discriminatory reasons.

The Applicant appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying claims regarding mould in the basement, incorrect stair stain colour, central vacuum rough-in location, and secondary compensation costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the home fit for habitation but ordered Tarion to pay half the estimated cost for further mould remediation, noting the Applicant's failure to mitigate humidity.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the stain colour, central vacuum, and secondary compensation, finding the latter excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for several alleged defects in their new home, which had suffered fire damage prior to possession.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed claims regarding a wood frame sill plate overhang, smoke stains, missing anchor bolts, a brick overhang, and malfunctioning garage doors.

The Tribunal found that the sill plate overhang and the brick overhang violated the Ontario Building Code and constituted warranted defects, ordering Tarion to pay $1,020.00 for their repair.

The remaining claims, including a request for reimbursement of engineering fees, were dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of jurisdiction.

The homeowner appealed Tarion's decision to disallow several warranty claims regarding her new home, including complaints about a fireplace, a kitchen ceiling leak, foundation brush coating, subfloor materials, and hardwood floor cupping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims.

While the Tribunal found a breach of warranty regarding the foundation brush coating, the homeowner failed to quantify damages.

Regarding the hardwood floor cupping, the Tribunal found that although the builder was likely responsible for the initial cupping due to improper acclimatisation, the homeowner's failure to mitigate damages by controlling the home's humidity extinguished the claim.

The builder's motion for costs was also denied.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for cracked window frames, water penetration from the roof, and gaps between window frames and walls in a new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims for cracked window frames and gaps were submitted outside the one-year statutory warranty period for defects in materials and workmanship.

The applicant failed to provide evidence that the damage was caused by water penetration, which would have fallen under the two-year warranty.

The tribunal accepted evidence that the window frame damage was likely caused by condensation exacerbated by the installation of California shutters.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding several alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed six remaining items: exterior siding, waterproofing membrane, garden door, step entrance, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor.

The Tribunal found breaches of the statutory warranty for the siding, waterproofing membrane, fireplace hearth, and subfloor, awarding a total of $2,445.00 for repairs.

The claims regarding the garden door and step entrance were dismissed as the applicants failed to prove a breach of warranty.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding several alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed six remaining items in dispute: exterior siding, waterproofing membrane, garden door, step entrance, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor.

The Tribunal found that the siding, waterproofing membrane, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor demonstrated poor workmanship and were covered by the statutory warranty.

The claims regarding the garden door and step entrance were dismissed.

Tarion was ordered to pay the homeowners $2,445.00 in full satisfaction of their claims.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for breach of warranty against the builder of their new home.

The applicants alleged that the builder breached the warranty by installing vinyl windows instead of the wood windows specified in the purchase agreement, claiming the vinyl windows were inferior and caused health issues for the wife.

The builder argued it was entitled to substitute materials of equal or better quality.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the home was unfit for habitation due to the vinyl windows.

Relying on expert evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the vinyl windows were of equal or better quality than the wood windows, noting their similar performance, better water penetration resistance, and significantly lower maintenance requirements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims regarding the hardwood floor in their new home.

The vendor had sanded and re-finished the floor to repair dents and cracks, which altered the floor's appearance and removed its micro-bevels.

The Tribunal found that the resulting floor was a typical Brazilian Oak floor without defect and dismissed the claims regarding aesthetics.

However, the Tribunal awarded the applicants $300 to conceal an un-re-finished strip of flooring caused by the floor finishers shifting the kitchen island, finding this to be a defect in workmanship.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which dismissed their claims against Tarion Warranty Corporation for alleged defects in their new home, including foundation issues, basement moisture, and squeaky floors.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Court found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of civil engineers and construction managers, that the home was built in accordance with the design and not too close to the water table.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they made fraudulent misrepresentations inducing the respondents to purchase a restaurant business.

The trial judge ordered rescission, general damages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, rescission, and punitive damages.

However, the Court reduced the general damages by $70,000 due to a lack of evidence for a management fee claim.

The Court also reduced the costs award, holding that awarding substantial indemnity costs based on the same conduct that justified punitive damages amounted to double compensation.