Marvin Kurz

The applicant sought a declaration that powers of attorney for personal care and property, executed by the respondent Ann McDonald in 2018, were valid and compliant with the Substitute Decisions Act.

The powers of attorney did not meet formal requirements because Ann did not sign them in the presence of witnesses; rather, witnesses signed five days later.

The court applied the curative provisions of the SDA, finding that Ann's acknowledgment of her signature and modification of the date to align with the witnesses' signatures demonstrated her true intentions and ratification of the documents.

The court declared both powers of attorney valid and effective, appointing the applicant as sole attorney for both personal care and property.

An urgent motion by the father for the return of a seven-year-old child who had been withheld by the mother for 18 days in breach of a final parenting order.

The mother had a lengthy history of disobeying parenting orders, including prior withholding of the child for extended periods, resulting in a contempt finding and financial penalties.

The mother's justifications for the withholding were financial in nature and unrelated to the child's best interests.

During the motion, the mother agreed to return the child.

The court granted an interim variation of the final order, imposing supervised parenting time on the mother for three months at a supervised parenting centre.

The court found the mother's conduct constituted bad faith breach of the court order and awarded full indemnity costs of $8,900 against the mother.

A motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The plaintiff advanced $120,000 to the defendant secured by a second mortgage on residential property at an interest rate of 12% for a six-month term expiring July 8, 2025.

The mortgage was not paid at maturity.

The defendant raised four defences: lack of legal demand, improper additional charges, denial of the principal amount, and entitlement to a 120-day grace period.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, though it substantially reduced the claimed additional charges by applying section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court allowed the defendant until December 1, 2025 before execution on a writ of possession.

A home builder brought a motion for judgment after noting the purchaser in default under Rule 19.05.

The purchaser failed to retain a solicitor and provide the builder with the solicitor's contact information as required by the Agreement of Purchase and Sale within the specified timeframe.

The builder terminated the agreement, forfeited the purchaser's deposits, and resold the property at a loss.

The court found the purchaser breached the APS and anticipatorily breached the closing obligations.

Judgment was granted for the shortfall between the original purchase price and resale price, plus additional expenses.

The court declined to award the contractual interest rate of 20% per annum, finding it to be a surprisingly onerous term that was not brought to the purchaser's attention, and instead applied the statutory prejudgment interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court awarded costs following a summary judgment decision in favour of the plaintiff bank on three unpaid loans totalling $274,311.33 plus interest, and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff sought costs on a solicitor and own client scale based on contractual terms in the loan agreements.

The court awarded enhanced costs at $15,000, finding the plaintiff entitled to such costs based on the contractual relationship, the defendant's multiple adjournment requests, and the lack of merit in the defendant's arguments.

This decision addresses a corporate dispute involving the sale of shares in Provix Inc. and the terms for a shotgun buy/sell process for NT&T Investment Partners Ltd., the holding company for Stanmech Technologies Inc. The court orders the transfer of shares in Provix to Cruise and TC Provix Holdco Inc. at a specified price, with a portion of the funds held in trust pending further determination.

The court also determines that Cruise and Tyrell Corp. must trigger the shotgun process for NT&T/Stanmech, based on the equities and the parties' conduct.

The decision provides detailed guidance on the implementation of the buy/sell process and addresses requests for further disclosure and ancillary relief.

The court addresses the issue of forum shopping in civil proceedings, specifically the practice of commencing actions in judicial regions with no rational connection to the dispute.

The Royal Bank of Canada brought a collection action in Halton against defendants residing in Belleville.

The court finds that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was based solely on convenience to itself and its counsel, with no connection to Halton.

Relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure, case law, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the court directs the plaintiff to seek leave to transfer the action to the Central East Region, warning that forum shopping is no longer acceptable and places undue strain on judicial resources.

The applicant, Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc., sought the appointment of a receiver over the property of the respondent, Ribs Transport Inc., following defaults under a credit agreement and two settlement agreements.

The court found that a subsequent settlement agreement (the "Second Settlement Agreement") was binding and that Ribs had substantially complied with its terms, including making significant payments and arranging a required meeting, albeit late.

The court declined to appoint a receiver, holding that such an appointment was not just or convenient in the circumstances, and adjourned the application sine die, returnable on notice if the settlement was breached.

The court addresses the issue of forum shopping in mortgage proceedings, specifically the practice of commencing actions in judicial regions with no connection to the underlying dispute.

The decision reviews the relevant Practice Direction, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its process.

The court finds that the action should have been brought in Owen Sound, not Halton, and criticizes the plaintiff’s venue choice as unfair and burdensome to the defendant and the court.

While granting the plaintiff leave to issue a writ of possession in this instance, the court warns that such conduct will not be tolerated in the future.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the Royal Bank of Canada against Nagina Wahab, who had guaranteed the debts of HI & DQ’s Foods Incorporated.

The court found that Wahab’s defences—including lack of independent legal advice, inability to understand English, and claims of acting under another’s direction—were unsupported by evidence.

The court held that the requirements for summary judgment were met, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Wahab was ordered to pay $300,000 plus interest and costs.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture after its lease was terminated for nonpayment of rent.

The court found that the landlord did not waive its right to terminate the lease, as any waiver required written confirmation, which was absent.

The tenant was in substantial arrears and failed to pay rent for several months.

The court also found that the landlord did not breach the lease by failing to provide notice, as the lease allowed termination for nonpayment after 15 days without notice.

The application for relief from forfeiture was dismissed, as the tenant delayed bringing the application, the lease was about to expire, and a new tenant had already occupied the premises.

The court considered a motion by the Applicant, Crystel Figaro, to compel financial disclosure from the Respondent, Shawn Figaro, and to adjourn a scheduled hearing regarding the validity of a separation agreement.

The Applicant argued that the agreement was entered into without full financial disclosure or independent legal advice.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the necessity of full disclosure in family law and finding that the Respondent had failed to provide adequate information.

The hearing was adjourned, and the Respondent was ordered to provide full answers to the Applicant’s request for information.

This decision concerns a corporate dispute between Nelson Penelas and Trevor Cruise regarding control and management of Stanmech Technologies Inc. and Provix Inc. The court addresses whether Cruise’s employment contract with Stanmech, executed while Penelas was improperly ousted, should be set aside, and whether related payments and legal fees should be repaid.

The court finds that Cruise’s conduct was self-dealing and oppressive, sets aside the employment contract, and orders repayment of funds.

The court declines to grant declaratory relief or to vary certain orders, and addresses requests to amend pleadings regarding a shotgun buy/sell process for Provix and Stanmech.

The court considered a motion for default judgment by the Bank of Montreal against Andrzej and Associates Property Management Inc. and Miguel Russell.

The claim arose from a dishonoured cheque deposited into the corporate account.

The court found the corporate defendant liable for the amount of the cheque and costs, but declined to find personal liability or fraud against Russell, nor to award punitive damages.

The court discussed the legal standards for default judgment, fraud, oppression under the OBCA, and punitive damages, ultimately granting judgment only against the corporation.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought a garnishment order against H & M Flooring Inc. to recover a judgment debt owed by Hussein El Hossaini.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that RBC failed to provide sufficient evidence of the amount, if any, owed by the garnishee to the debtor.

The court emphasized that a failure to respond to a garnishment notice does not create a presumption that the full amount claimed is owed, and that reliable evidence of the debt is required before a garnishment order can be made.

This decision addresses cross-applications between two groups of real estate investors, led by David Civiero and Grant Alexander Hood, regarding the winding up or buy-sell/shotgun disposition of their jointly held corporations.

The court grants leave to add parties, converts the applications to actions, and orders transfer and consolidation with a related Toronto action, finding that the complexity and credibility issues require a full trial.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied to be appointed as the permanent guardian of property for Fumio Hara, a 91-year-old suffering from dementia, and to terminate the existing power of attorney naming his brothers, Gerald and Katsushi Hara.

The court found compelling evidence that Gerald had misappropriated and mismanaged Fumio’s property, and that no other family member was willing or able to act as guardian.

The court appointed the PGT as permanent guardian, despite Fumio’s prior wishes, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against Gerald.

This decision concerns a motion by Jaspreet Kaur for security for costs against Ronald Dawson in a dispute over the beneficial ownership of real property.

The court finds that Dawson failed to pay prior costs orders, appears to be a nominal applicant, and that the application is arguably frivolous and vexatious.

The court orders Dawson to post security for costs, with leave for Kaur to seek further security as the litigation progresses.

This is an appeal of a decision by the Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the Town of Oakville, which authorized a compliance audit of a municipal councillor's campaign finances.

The appellant argued that the applicant for the audit lacked standing because they were not an elector of the specific ward in which the councillor ran.

The court, applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and the presumption of consistent expression, found that the relevant statutory provision (s. 88.33(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996) must be read in conjunction with s. 19(7) of the same Act, which limits an elector's voting entitlement to their ward of residence in ward-divided municipalities.

Consequently, the court held that only an elector residing in the specific ward has standing to request a compliance audit for a candidate in that ward.

The Committee's decision to order the audit was set aside due to the applicant's lack of standing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand following a motor vehicle collision.

He argued that the police lacked valid grounds to make the demand, that the demand was not made as soon as practicable, and that he had a reasonable excuse for refusing because he was not the driver.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law or assessment of credibility, and declined to depart from binding Supreme Court precedent establishing that not driving is not a reasonable excuse for refusing a valid breath demand.