Matthew Carl Luigi Valitutti

This decision addresses consolidated appeals and cross-appeals arising from a protracted "turf war" between two competing cash-for-gold businesses, operated by Harold Gerstel and Samuel Jacob Berkovits (Jack).

The litigation involved three main actions: the "Murder for Hire Action" (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress), the "Interference Action" (nuisance, intentional interference with economic relations), and the "Town Crier Action" (defamation).

The trial judge found Jack liable for abuse of process to Maria Konstan (Harold's employee), Harold liable to Jack for nuisance and intentional interference, and Harold liable to Jack for defamation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal granted Jack's appeal, setting aside the finding that he was liable to Maria for abuse of process, by clarifying the stringent "initiation" requirement for private complainants in such torts.

All other appeals and cross-appeals, including Harold's challenges to liability and damages for nuisance/interference, and Jack's cross-appeal for aggravated/punitive defamation damages, were dismissed.

This decision addresses consolidated appeals and cross-appeals arising from a protracted "turf war" between two competing cash-for-gold businesses, operated by Harold Gerstel and Samuel Jacob Berkovits (Jack).

The litigation involved three main actions: the "Murder for Hire Action" (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress), the "Interference Action" (nuisance, intentional interference with economic relations), and the "Town Crier Action" (defamation).

The trial judge found Jack liable for abuse of process to Maria Konstan (Harold's employee), Harold liable to Jack for nuisance and intentional interference, and Harold liable to Jack for defamation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal granted Jack's appeal, setting aside the finding that he was liable to Maria for abuse of process, by clarifying the stringent "initiation" requirement for private complainants in such torts.

All other appeals and cross-appeals, including Harold's challenges to liability and damages for nuisance/interference, and Jack's cross-appeal for aggravated/punitive defamation damages, were dismissed.

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs), alleging the plaintiff fraudulently obtained them by withholding a financial statement from a prior matrimonial file.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the defendants' motion as an abuse of process.

The court found that the defendants had prior knowledge of the "material and crucial" evidence but consciously chose not to present it at the original CPL motion.

Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, dismissing the defendants' motion to discharge the CPLs on the basis of abuse of process.

The court also criticized the defendants' litigation strategy and ordered that no further motions could be brought without leave of the Commercial List Team Lead.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, was granted summary judgment against the defendants for nonpayment of mortgage loans and a credit card debt.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $73,882.20.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs, citing the "unfair or unduly onerous" exception.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to substantial indemnity based on the lending documents but reduced the claimed amount to $40,000 plus HST, considering the stage of the proceedings and the work involved.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a solicitor’s negligence claim arising from a commercial real estate transaction involving a building encroaching on a municipal laneway.

The plaintiffs alleged their lawyers failed to warn that the municipality might require payment to convey the laneway and that the title insurance obtained did not cover such a cost.

The court rejected arguments that the claim was statute‑barred and held that expert evidence was unnecessary because the failure to warn of a significant legal risk was apparent on the record.

Applying the “but for” causation test, the court found that had proper advice been given the plaintiffs likely would have sought protection such as a holdback or price abatement.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs, leaving only the assessment of damages and the claim against the title insurer for trial.