Matthew Christopher MacKenzie Morden

The applicants sought the appointment of an administrator and inspector to oversee a condominium corporation, alleging oppressive conduct by board members regarding the administration of allocated cost contribution fees.

The court denied both requests, finding that the board's inability to meet was caused by the applicants' own bad faith conduct in refusing to attend meetings.

The court found no substantial misconduct or mismanagement warranting the appointment of an administrator as a last resort.

The applicants' concerns about fee administration were found to be reasonable but did not meet the threshold for intervention.

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 brought an application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to order a unit owner, Carmine Leuzzi, to cease and desist from harassing individuals on the condominium property.

Mr. Leuzzi brought a cross-application under section 135 of the Act seeking an oppression remedy.

The court addressed several preliminary evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of audio recordings and hearsay statements in affidavits.

Ultimately, the court granted the condominium corporation's application and dismissed the unit owner's cross-application.

The appellant, Natalie Mouralian, brought a motion for a stay of the Court of Appeal's decision pending her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The underlying dispute involved a failed real estate transaction and the forfeiture of a $70,000 deposit, with the Superior Court and Court of Appeal having previously denied relief from forfeiture.

The motions judge denied the stay, finding that the issues raised by the appellant were factual, not legal, and therefore unlikely to meet the Supreme Court's stringent leave criteria for public or national importance.

The judge also noted the respondent's counsel's improper release of the deposit funds despite notice of intent to seek leave, though this did not affect the merits of the stay motion.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal determined that the offer to settle did not automatically trigger costs consequences or justify an extraordinary award of substantial indemnity costs, maintaining its original order for partial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned a failed real estate transaction where the appellant sought the return of a $70,000 deposit after failing to close due to financing issues, despite the respondent subsequently selling the property at a profit.

The appellant argued that retaining the deposit was unconscionable, citing the respondent's lack of loss and the appellant's alleged lack of capacity due to mental health struggles and bereavement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that it was not unconscionable for the respondent to retain the deposit, as there was no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and the appellant had intended to close the transaction.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court also amended previous orders to state that the order will cease to have effect if the defendant pays the Canadian dollar equivalent of €3,266,122.45 into court as security.

The appellant, Nathalie Mouralian, brought a motion before the Court of Appeal for the appointment of a "litigation guardian counsel" to assist with her appeal, citing serious mental health challenges and a brain injury.

The motion was dismissed for two reasons: first, the court lacked authority to appoint a "litigation guardian counsel" as the appellant required counsel, not merely a guardian; and second, the medical evidence provided did not establish mental incapacity as required by Rule 7.04(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and sections 6 or 45 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

This appeal concerned a post-closing dispute over HST liability following the sale of a mixed-use property.

The purchasers' counterclaim, alleging HST liability, was dismissed at trial on the basis that they suffered no loss and arguably benefited from a windfall.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the purchasers suffered no loss, which justified the dismissal of the counterclaim.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and it was deemed unnecessary to address other legal arguments regarding the Excise Tax Act or post-closing readjustment.

The plaintiff purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction after being unable to secure financing.

The defendant vendor subsequently sold the property for a higher price and brought a summary judgment motion to retain the $70,000 deposit.

The plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture, arguing she lacked capacity due to mental health struggles when signing the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and ordered the deposit forfeited.

The parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a mixed-use property, with the contract specifying that HST was 'included in' the purchase price.

After closing, the Canada Revenue Agency reassessed the transaction, significantly increasing the HST payable.

The buyers cross-claimed for breach of contract, seeking a price adjustment for the reassessed HST amount.

The court found that the vendor had assumed the risk of HST and had a duty to adjust the price.

However, the court awarded no damages because the buyers suffered no actual loss, having received input tax credits that fully offset the reassessed HST.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against the board member defendants, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought $15,784.88 for the motion and the action to date, while the plaintiff argued for $7,000.

The court awarded the defendants $10,490 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, finding that while the defendants' claimed hours for research were high, they were entitled to costs for both the motion and the action.

The plaintiff condominium owner sued the condominium corporation and its individual board members for construction deficiencies and alleged negligence in their decision-making.

The board members moved to strike the claims against them, and the plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court struck the claims against the individual directors without leave to amend, finding that the pleadings failed to differentiate the directors' actions from those of the corporation.

The court held that directors cannot be held personally liable for decisions made in their capacity as the directing minds of the corporation absent allegations of independent tortious conduct or a separate identity of interest.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs for an application and compensation for her time as a self-represented litigant on a fresh evidence motion.

The court found divided success on the application, entitling the applicant to some costs, but significantly reduced the quantum due to disproportionality and the respondent's reasonable expectations.

For the fresh evidence motion, no costs were awarded to the self-represented applicant due to a lack of evidence demonstrating lost remunerative opportunity, a requirement for lay litigant compensation.

The applicant sought declaratory relief and damages against the condominium corporation for failure to repair common elements (basement and roof water penetration) and for alleged misrepresentation in the Status Certificate regarding a special assessment.

The court found the condominium corporation breached its duty to repair common elements in a reasonable and timely manner, awarding the applicant lost rental income and specific out-of-pocket expenses.

However, the court dismissed claims for oppression, aggravated damages, and relief from the special assessment, finding no misrepresentation in the Status Certificate.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs, asserting the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed ordinarily resident outside Ontario based on his significant time spent in Mexico.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a good chance of success on the merits of his claim for wrongful dismissal or dependent contractor damages, and the court concluded that the justice of the case did not require an order for security for costs.

Supplementary reasons following an order setting aside a registrar's dismissal for delay.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that while the plaintiff was successful, it had received an indulgence and the defendants' opposition was reasonable.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering the plaintiff to produce the representative chosen by the defendants for examination for discovery, and setting an attendance fee for witnesses travelling to Toronto.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs following its substantial success on a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The defendants argued the plaintiff achieved only limited success and that the motion could have been avoided if the plaintiff's initial notice of motion had been narrower.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful on the core issue of the confidentiality of the Diagnosis Database, which was the focus of the motion.

While acknowledging some unnecessary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs, reduced from the amount sought, taking into account the factors under Rule 57.01(1).

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent a former co-founder and his new company from using a confidential 'Diagnosis Database' for predictive modelling in the insurance industry.

The former co-founder had sold his interest in the plaintiff company and subsequently agreed to conduct a benchmarking study for a former client of the plaintiff.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the misappropriation of trade secrets, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from unfair competition, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted.

Following a successful summary judgment motion against the defendant property manager for professional negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiff condominium corporation sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed full indemnity costs based on an indemnity provision in the condominium management agreement.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to full indemnity of its reasonable costs due to the contractual provision.

Finding the claimed amount of $57,816 excessive despite the defendant's stiff resistance, the court fixed costs at $42,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment against its former property manager for breach of contract and indemnification.

The property manager had issued an inaccurate and incomplete status certificate to a purchaser, failing to disclose an ongoing expropriation and a planned roof replacement project.

As a result, the condominium corporation incurred $97,182.68 in legal costs defending an application brought by the purchaser.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the property manager breached the management agreement and was liable under the indemnity clause for the costs incurred by the condominium corporation.