Matthew Benjamin Lerner

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting its practice of not providing reasons for such decisions.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the responding developer, payable in monthly installments.

The self-represented moving party requested a short adjournment of his motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal due to technical challenges, illness, and the need to cross-examine a responding witness.

The Ontario Land Tribunal and the City of Toronto took no position, while the respondent developer opposed the request.

The court granted the adjournment on peremptory terms, setting a schedule for cross-examination and the filing of materials.

The plaintiff sued his former solicitor and law firm for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the preparation of a marriage contract.

The marriage contract was previously set aside in a divorce proceeding because the plaintiff's former spouse did not understand its nature and consequences, largely due to the solicitor's failure to ensure proper independent legal advice and his conflict of interest.

The court found the solicitor breached the standard of care and his fiduciary duties.

The court held that 'but for' the solicitor's negligence, the marriage contract would have been enforceable, and awarded the plaintiff damages for the equalization payment, legal costs, and financing interest incurred.

The appellants restructured family trusts, incorporating "Child Corporations" and subscribing for shares without actual payment, leading to a significant tax reassessment by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for taxable benefits.

They sought a declaration from the Superior Court that the shares were invalidly issued under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and an order for rectification of share registers, aiming to negate the tax assessment.

The Superior Court declined jurisdiction, deferring to the Tax Court of Canada, and also indicated it would not have granted the requested relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court's discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, finding no reviewable error.

The Court emphasized that the primary dispute was between the appellants and the CRA, falling within the Tax Court's specialized expertise, and that the corporate parties did not require a binding order from the Superior Court to resolve internal corporate issues.

The applicants, a syndicate of lenders and various construction trades, sought declarations that the respondent surety could not rescind performance and payment bonds issued for a hospital redevelopment project.

The surety had discovered alleged fraud and collusion in the procurement process and commenced a separate action for rescission.

The applicants argued they were innocent third parties whose rights under the bonds could not be defeated by the alleged fraud of the principals.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants' rights were derivative of the principals and that rescission remained a possible equitable remedy that must be determined on a full factual record at trial.

This decision concerns the award of costs following a successful application for specific performance of a real estate transaction.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $108,000.

The respondents argued the costs were excessive and that they lacked the means to pay.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct throughout the litigation warranted such a sanction.

The judge cited the respondents' actions in raising baseless issues, causing delay and friction, the asymmetrical importance of the issues to the parties, and the advancement of unproved allegations of dishonesty as key factors justifying the award.

The appellants brought a motion to stay a judgment granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for their commercial property.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay: serious question, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

The court found the serious question threshold was met, acknowledged the irreparable harm to the appellants' business, and determined the balance of convenience favoured the appellants if the appeal was expedited.

The motion for a stay was granted, contingent on an expedited appeal schedule, and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The plaintiff pharmaceutical manufacturer sued the corporate defendants and their sole director, a pharmacist, alleging unauthorized 'vial-splitting' of a specialty ophthalmic drug.

The individual defendant moved to strike the claims against him personally, arguing they duplicated the claims against the corporate defendants.

The court struck the intentional tort claims but allowed the negligence and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, finding it possible the individual acted in his personal capacity as a pharmacist.

The plaintiff also successfully moved to strike a paragraph in the statement of defence that referenced the contents of its complaint to the Ontario College of Pharmacists, as such contents are inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property needed for a land assembly development.

The respondents repudiated the agreement, arguing that the wife was coerced into signing and did not sign all portions of the document.

The court found that a binding agreement was formed, rejecting the coercion claims as unsupported and finding the signatures sufficient.

The court granted specific performance, holding that the property was unique to the applicant's development plans and damages would be inadequate.

The applicant brought an application to enforce his rights under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding a cannabis licence in Zimbabwe.

The respondents moved to stay the proceedings, arguing the MOA mandated arbitration at the London Court of International Arbitration.

The applicant argued the MOA also contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause for Canadian courts, creating a conflict that allowed him to choose the forum.

The court found that it was arguable the dispute fell within the mandatory arbitration provision and, applying the competence-competence principle, stayed the application to allow the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The applicants sought declarations that shares issued to them in corporations created for their children were never validly issued because the shares were allegedly never paid for, and sought rectification of the share registers after CRA reassessments treated them as controlling shareholders who received taxable benefits.

The court declined jurisdiction, holding that the application was in substance an attempt to influence the outcome of a tax dispute that should be determined in the Tax Court of Canada, which was better placed to interpret and apply the relevant corporate law issues in the tax context.

In any event, declaratory relief was refused because there was conflicting evidence on payment, no internal corporate dispute requiring intervention, and potential retroactive disruption to prior corporate acts.

Rectification was also refused because the records accurately reflected the parties' original intention and the requested relief would amount to impermissible retroactive tax planning.

The defendant physician brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claims of the infant plaintiffs (triplets) for "wrongful life." The claims arose from the physician's alleged negligence in prescribing a fertility drug to the mother, leading to multiple births and premature delivery, resulting in the triplets' serious disabilities.

The court, applying established Ontario jurisprudence, found no duty of care owed by the physician to unconceived children, as the alleged negligence occurred prior to conception.

The motion was granted, and the infant plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without leave to amend.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for leave to serve and rely on a late expert report, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of over $20,000, arguing the defendant's conduct warranted a punitive scale.

The court found the defendant's position on the motion was arguable and did not constitute an intentional breach of a prior order.

Applying the factors in Rule 57, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $10,000 plus HST.

The defendant, Pacific Mortgage Group Inc., brought a motion seeking leave to introduce a late-served expert report from Duff & Phelps in a claim on a promissory note and counterclaim alleging undisclosed liabilities.

The court had previously issued an order precluding the service of expert reports due to the defendant's "cavalier and unacceptable" approach to compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was opposed by the plaintiff and other parties, who argued that admitting the report would cause prejudice and further delay.

The court applied the three-part test from Gardner v Hann, considering the reason for non-compliance, its effects, and fairness in the circumstances.

Finding no adequate explanation for the delay, significant prejudice to the opposing parties, and a disregard for court orders, the court denied leave to introduce the expert report.

In a medical negligence action concerning the birth of triplets with severe disabilities, the defendant Dr. Benzaquen brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the infant plaintiffs' "wrongful life" claims.

The plaintiffs argued the motion required a full evidentiary record and should be heard at trial.

The court determined that Rule 21 motions, which address questions of law on the pleadings, should generally be heard at the earliest date, prior to trial, to potentially dispose of claims or substantially shorten the trial.

The judge directed counsel to schedule the motion for October 2019 and confirmed a new trial date for March 2021, allowing for potential appeals of the motion decision before the lengthy trial.

The applicant, GolfNorth Properties Inc., sought declarations that its June 14 Offer to purchase shares/LPUs was not a "Permitted Offer" under the relevant agreements, thereby invalidating Mill-Gate Holdings Inc.'s exercise of a right of first refusal.

The respondents argued GolfNorth Properties lacked standing and that the June 14 Offer was a Permitted Offer.

The court found that GolfNorth Properties, as a non-party to the agreements, lacked standing due to privity of contract.

Alternatively, the court determined that the definition of "Permitted Offer" was ambiguous and, considering the parties' subsequent conduct, concluded that the June 14 Offer was indeed a Permitted Offer, which validly triggered Mill-Gate's right of first refusal.

The application was dismissed.

The court determined costs for contempt proceedings initiated by Atif Kamran against Dan Andersson and LEO Canada Inc. While Kamran succeeded in having Andersson found in contempt for some breaches, Andersson successfully purged his contempt and resisted many of Kamran's requested penalties.

The court found success was divided, and Kamran's approach to the penalty phase was overly aggressive.

No costs were awarded to LEO Canada Inc. or Geraldine Aquino.

The court awarded Atif Kamran $40,000 in all-inclusive costs from Dan Andersson, on a partial indemnity basis, and dismissed Andersson's cross-motion for costs.

The defendant brought a motion to impose penalties on the plaintiff for civil contempt regarding a failure to provide access to corporate records.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a declaration that he had purged his contempt.

The court found that the plaintiff had made good faith efforts to comply with the order and had purged his contempt.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 for the initial contempt and ordered that the previous contempt order be set aside upon payment of the fine.

The corporate defendant brought a motion to adjourn the trial date after its counsel was removed from the record shortly before trial.

The plaintiff and defendants by counterclaim strongly opposed the adjournment, arguing the defendant's principal had delayed in retaining new counsel.

The pre-trial judge determined she had jurisdiction to hear the adjournment request under Rule 50.07.

Despite finding the defendant's principal largely responsible for the delay, the court reluctantly granted the adjournment to allow the unrepresented corporation to retain counsel, noting this was the first fixed trial date and there was no evidence of prejudice.

The adjournment was granted on peremptory terms with costs thrown away awarded to the opposing parties.

A priority dispute arose between Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), a secured creditor of bankrupt contractor A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd., Guarantee Company of North America (GCNA), a bond company and secured creditor, and certain employees represented by unions.

The central issue was whether funds paid to the receiver by owners, which constituted "trust funds" under section 8 of the Construction Lien Act (CLA), were excluded from the bankrupt's estate available to creditors pursuant to section 67(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The motion judge found the funds were not excluded and were available for distribution.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that provincially created statutory trusts satisfying general principles of trust law are preserved from distribution to ordinary creditors under the BIA.