Martin Greenglass

The Plaintiff, 1305268 Ontario Inc., moved for summary judgment seeking foreclosure on a mortgage against the Defendant, 823042 Ontario Inc. The Defendant argued that the mortgage enforcement was statute-barred by a 10-year limitation period, alleging that three letters purporting to renew the mortgage were fraudulent.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the authenticity of the renewal letters and the limitations defense.

The judge emphasized the necessity of *viva voce* evidence and credibility assessment, particularly from a key witness, Kenneth James, and drew an adverse inference from the Plaintiff's failure to call him.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendants, specifically Toronto Dominion Bank (TD Bank), seeking recovery for amounts paid on forged cheques by a former bookkeeper.

The motion proceeded to a mini-trial on the issue of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was not statute-barred, as the fraud was skillfully concealed by the bookkeeper, and the plaintiff, a machinist without financial expertise, acted diligently once alerted to the possibility of fraud.

The court applied the "reasonable person" standard, considering the plaintiff's abilities and circumstances, and concluded that the lack of sophisticated internal controls did not render the plaintiff unreasonable.

Partial summary judgment was granted against TD Bank for the cheque fraud amounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant bank for amounts paid on cheques forged by the plaintiffs' former bookkeeper.

The bank raised two defences: an alleged account verification agreement and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the agreement defence, as the bank could not produce evidence that the relevant plaintiffs had signed such an agreement.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the limitation period defence, specifically on the issue of discoverability, and ordered a mini-trial to determine when a reasonable person ought to have discovered the forgeries.

The plaintiff landlord moved for summary judgment for unpaid rent under a commercial lease.

The defendant tenant argued that the notice of default was insufficient and that the landlord's re-entry by changing the locks amounted to forfeiture rather than distraint.

The court found that actual notice was received via email and fax, satisfying the notice requirement.

The court also held that the re-entry was a proper distraint, as the landlord clearly communicated its intent to distrain and offered reasonable access to the premises.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the calculation of additional rent damages.

The plaintiffs sought an order for the defendant's incarceration for contempt of court orders.

The defendant had previously been found in contempt for failing to provide a tracing/accounting of investment funds.

The court found the defendant's one-page accounting insufficient to purge contempt but granted a final opportunity to comply.

The defendant was ordered to provide a full and complete tracing and accounting, including specific details and supporting documentation, by August 31, 2017, along with amended Schedule A documentation.

Failure to comply would result in the continuation of the contempt motion.

Costs were reserved.

The appellant appealed a Master's order granting the respondent leave to amend his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to add the appellant as a defendant by counterclaim.

The appellant argued the Master erred in granting leave after the action was set down for trial, in her application of the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002, and in finding the respondent had standing to bring an oppression claim.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Master's decision to allow the amendments and add the appellant as a party.

The plaintiffs sought an order for the defendant's incarceration due to contempt of court orders related to an outstanding judgment of over $3.5 million and costs.

The defendant, who had a history of non-compliance and previous incarceration for contempt, sought an adjournment to retain counsel and prepare an accounting.

The court found the defendant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt but granted an adjournment with strict conditions, including a deadline for providing an accounting and production of documents, and a fixed date for the return motion, regardless of counsel retention.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering him to pay $1,293,734.54 owing on a private residential mortgage granted to the respondents in February 2011.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment requested on the trial date and in proceeding with the trial in the appellant's absence.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing the adjournment given the lengthy history of the litigation, multiple pre-trials, prior adjournment, the appellant's failure to retain counsel, and the respondents' readiness to proceed.

The court also found that the appellant's proposed defence lacked merit and that any fresh evidence would not have yielded a different outcome.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal allowed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellants were successful in their appeal from a Superior Court decision dated February 1, 2016.

The court awarded costs of the motion in the court below and of the appeal to the appellants on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent did not submit costs submissions within the deadline.

The court fixed the appellants' costs at $20,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Bijan Naghshbandi, sought leave to amend his statement of defence and counterclaim to add Tarra Engineering and Structural Consultants Inc. (TESC) as a defendant by counterclaim and to add claims for monetary damages.

The motion required leave under Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial.

The court granted leave, finding a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances due to late production of financial records.

The court also allowed most proposed amendments, including claims for a declaration of ownership interest in Tarra Inc. and TESC, successor corporation status, oppression remedy under the OBCA, and fraud.

However, claims for breach of contract, inducement to breach contract, and unjust enrichment related to unpaid salary and management fees against TESC were denied as untenable.

TESC was granted leave to plead a limitations defence.

Costs were awarded to Naghshbandi, fixed at $8,000, payable equally by the opposing parties.

This trial concerned a mortgage action where the plaintiffs sought judgment against Hans Jorg Reichert on the covenant in a second mortgage.

The defendants, Hans Jorg Reichert and Marianne Reichert, claimed the property was owned by a trust, not Mr. Reichert personally.

The court found Mr. Reichert personally liable, noting that he was designated as the mortgagor and owner in the registered mortgage and related documentation, and his wife signed spousal consent, corroborating it as their matrimonial home.

The court granted judgment for the plaintiffs, including principal, interest, and costs incurred to maintain the first mortgage.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, a TD mobile mortgage manager and TD Bank, for negligent misrepresentation regarding a $120,000 investment in a debenture.

The plaintiff claimed the manager assured him the investment was safe and that he assumed TD was involved.

The court found that the manager's statements were honest opinions given "friend to friend" based on personal experience, and did not constitute negligent misrepresentation.

The court also found no reasonable basis for the plaintiff to assume TD was involved, dismissing the vicarious liability claim against TD.

Furthermore, the court held the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the claims against the manager and the vicarious liability claim against TD were dismissed.

The plaintiffs, who held a $3.5 million consent judgment against the defendant, brought a motion to have the defendant imprisoned for contempt for failing to provide an accounting and cooperate in his judgment debtor examination.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's recent conduct was contemptuous.

Noting that the civil enforcement process was being misused to punish the defendant rather than collect the debt, the court ordered the defendant to complete a comprehensive Judgment Debtor Questionnaire to facilitate the enforcement process.

Judgment creditors appealed under s. 81 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act from a trustee’s disallowance of their proof of claim asserting that funds in a segregated “Accumulating Account” were held in trust for their benefit.

The account had been created pursuant to terms imposed by the Ontario Securities Commission requiring the bankrupt investment dealer to accumulate assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment while an appeal was pending.

The appellants argued the regulatory arrangements and segregation of funds established the three certainties necessary to form a trust.

The court held that the regulatory conditions were intended to preserve assets pending resolution of the judgment rather than to create a trust conferring beneficial ownership on the judgment creditors.

As certainty of intention to create a trust was not established, the funds formed part of the bankrupt estate.

The plaintiffs sought the execution of a warrant of committal against the self-represented defendant for civil contempt after he failed to produce ordered documents.

The defendant requested a stay of the committal order to retain counsel and attend the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the request, finding it to be a transparent delay tactic given the defendant's repeated unfulfilled promises to retain counsel over the past year.

The defendant was ordered into custody but permitted to be escorted by police to attend other scheduled civil motions.

The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the defendant for $3,552,000 after he lost their retirement savings holding himself out as an investment advisor.

The defendant repeatedly failed to comply with court orders requiring him to produce financial records for a judgment debtor examination, claiming the documents were subject to Crown disclosure in pending criminal proceedings.

The court rejected this argument, finding the defendant in civil contempt.

As the defendant failed to purge his contempt after being given a final opportunity, the court sentenced him to 15 days of incarceration.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion to amend its statement of claim against the defendant bank to allege that a specific individual was not an authorized signing officer when she conducted fraudulent transactions.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing it amounted to the withdrawal of an admission, asserted a new cause of action after the limitation period expired, and constituted an abuse of process.

The Master granted the motion, finding the original pleading was not an admission but a background fact, there was a triable issue regarding the discoverability of the new cause of action, and there was no abuse of process.

Two lawyers were victims of a fraudulent loan scheme involving counterfeit certified cheques deposited into their trust accounts.

Acting on instructions from fraudsters posing as a financing company, the lawyers issued a trust cheque and bank draft payable to a jewellery business, which were deposited into fraudulent bank accounts.

When the counterfeit instruments were discovered, the bank debited the lawyers’ trust accounts.

The plaintiffs sued the bank for conversion and negligence.

The court held that the payee was neither fictitious nor non‑existing because the drawers intended payment to an identifiable entity, and the collecting bank’s negotiation of the instruments constituted conversion.

Following the granting of summary judgment in favour of a lender in a commercial loan enforcement action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful lender sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual indemnity provisions in the mortgage, standard charge terms, and general security agreement.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should receive substantial indemnity costs due to alleged unfounded accusations of dishonesty and the purportedly novel nature of the dispute.

The court held that costs should follow the event and rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding misconduct and novelty.

Exercising its discretion and applying proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs rather than the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff Bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a demand loan and for possession of a mortgaged commercial property.

Although the borrower was current on monthly payments, the Bank demanded repayment based on non-financial defaults, including the unauthorized transfer of the property to a limited partnership, late financial statements, and misrepresentations in statutory declarations.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the loan documents clearly permitted demand at any time and that the non-financial breaches justified the Bank's decision to call the loan.