Marvin J. Huberman

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $187,500 in commission from the defendant for an alleged breach of a Buyer Representation Agreement.

The defendant opposed the motion and maintained a counterclaim for damages, alleging the agreement was incomplete when signed and backdated.

The court found significant contradictory evidence regarding the execution and terms of the agreement, concluding there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, as the use of enhanced fact-finding powers would not be in the interests of justice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $1,573,903.94 from the defendant for unremitted HST on the sale of unrefined gold.

The Canada Revenue Agency had audited the plaintiff and assessed the outstanding HST, which the plaintiff paid.

The defendant argued the claim was precluded by the Excise Tax Act and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the cause of action under section 224 of the Excise Tax Act only arose when the plaintiff paid the tax, meaning the limitation period had not expired.

Summary judgment was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement reached on February 3, 2017, under which the defendants agreed to pay $10,000 plus costs to be assessed, argued, or negotiated.

The court noted that a motion to enforce was unnecessary as the settlement was conceded, and the only remaining issue was the quantum of costs.

Applying principles of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs of the action at $33,414.31 and awarded $1,500 for the costs of the motion.

The moving party sought to strike the plaintiff’s Superior Court action as an abuse of process, arguing that the plaintiff’s earlier Small Claims Court proceeding—later dismissed as abandoned—barred the new action.

The court held that the Small Claims Court dismissal was administrative and not a determination on the merits.

The endorsement from the settlement conference did not constitute a binding order requiring transfer to the Superior Court, and the defendant had not demonstrated prejudice.

Applying the flexible abuse of process doctrine, the court concluded that allowing the claim to proceed would not undermine the administration of justice.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for slander, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from his arrest at a cheque‑cashing store after attempting to cash a cheque that store staff believed to be fraudulent.

The court found that although defamatory words were communicated to police and employees, the statements were protected by qualified privilege and there was no proof of malice.

The malicious prosecution claim failed because the defendant did not initiate the prosecution and reasonable and probable grounds existed for the police investigation and charges.

The claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering also failed because the defendant’s conduct was not flagrant or outrageous and causation of the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was not established.

In addition, the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff did not prove incapacity to suspend the limitation period.