Mauro Marchioni

The plaintiff, Novastar Corporation Inc., sought summary judgment against the defendants, Michael and Danielle Amoroso, for repayment of a $250,000 loan evidenced by a demand promissory note.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred and Danielle raised a non est factum defence.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal demand for payment was not made until May 2023, and the action was commenced within the limitation period.

Danielle’s non est factum defence failed as she did not exercise reasonable care in signing the note.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff electrical contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant restaurant owner for unpaid services and materials supplied during a restaurant build-out.

The defendant disputed the contract price, scope of work, and claimed set-offs for alleged deficiencies and incomplete work.

The court found that the parties had formed a binding contract based on the plaintiff's estimate and that the defendant breached the contract by non-payment.

The court allowed a portion of the plaintiff's claimed extras but dismissed the defendant's set-off claims due to a lack of cogent evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien and judgment in the amount of $66,307.50.

The defendants sought an adjournment of a five-day trial because one of the named defendants was scheduled to undergo spinal surgery.

The plaintiffs' counsel refused to consent to the adjournment, demanding medical records and authorizations to speak directly with the defendant's treating physicians.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the plaintiffs' counsel's demands inappropriate and contrary to the principles of professionalism, and ordered that the plaintiffs could not recover costs incurred after being notified of the adjournment request.

Following a successful motion by the landlord to terminate a commercial lease and obtain immediate possession due to over $1 million in rent arrears, the court determined costs.

The landlord sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the lease terms and due to the tenant's unreasonable conduct, including advancing meritless arguments and refusing to approve the draft order.

The court awarded the landlord $45,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, payable forthwith.

The landlord brought a motion for an order declaring a commercial lease terminated and for a writ of possession due to the tenant's failure to pay rent for 29 months.

The tenant argued it was entitled to withhold rent and sought an abatement, alleging the landlord breached the lease and its duty of good faith by failing to disclose redevelopment plans and failing to maintain the shopping centre.

The court found no breach by the landlord, noting the tenant had contracted out of any right to abatement.

The court denied the tenant's request for relief from forfeiture due to its unreasonable conduct and the significant rent arrears of over $1 million.

The landlord's motion was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale, a notice of garnishment, and a tracing order to enforce a 2013 judgment.

The court established a timetable on consent and scheduled the motion to be heard on August 31, 2021.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, an officer of their corporation, fraudulently and without authorization registered two mortgages against their properties.

They also sued the lawyer who registered the mortgages for negligence and the mortgagees for relying on the mortgages despite alleged red flags.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the officer had actual authority to bind the corporation under its by-laws, the plaintiff was aware of and benefited from the mortgages as part of a scheme to avoid foreign creditors, the lawyer met the standard of care, and the mortgagees were protected by the indoor management rule and the Land Titles Act.

The appellant appealed a default judgment obtained by the respondents in a real estate dispute.

The respondents, as purchasers, alleged that the appellant, as vendor, made negligent misrepresentations regarding property taxes in MLS listings for two properties.

The motion judge declined to set aside the default judgment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judgment was irregularly obtained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the default judgment, finding that the statement of claim provided a sufficient basis for the judgment as it included allegations of negligent misrepresentation and a plea that the respondents would not have entered into the transactions but for the misrepresentations.

The appellant, a commercial bakery, appealed a summary judgment dismissal of its insurance claim against Intact Insurance Company for losses resulting from a power outage caused by an ice storm in December 2013.

The losses claimed included stock spoilage and business interruption.

The motion judge found that exclusionary clauses in the insurance policy precluded coverage because the loss or damage to electrical transmission lines or distribution lines was not located on the appellant's premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the policy and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding partial summary judgment principles and the need for expert evidence.

The applicant municipality brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondent, a former mayor, for breaching a prior court order by disclosing confidential information during public town hall meetings.

The court found that the respondent had indeed breached the order by revealing personal information of employees from a confidential binder, and that the breach was intentional as per the legal test for civil contempt.

However, the court exercised its discretion to decline a formal finding of contempt, considering factors such as the respondent's honest belief (a mistake of law without contumacious intent), reliance on legal advice, the context of political discourse during an election campaign, the cessation of the conduct post-election, and the fundamental importance of freedom of expression.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation, the successful plaintiffs sought costs of $19,726.56, arguing for substantial indemnity based on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer was arguably not timely under Rule 49 and doubted whether a responding party on a motion is entitled to the same costs consequences as a plaintiff in an action.

Applying principles of proportionality and Rule 57, the court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs fixed at $10,187.30.

The defendant was successful on a motion for security for costs and sought partial indemnity costs of $41,616.76.

The plaintiff argued the requested costs were excessive and suggested $25,000 in the cause.

The court agreed the defendant's requested costs were excessive, noting the defendant was only partially successful in the quantum of security ordered.

The court fixed the defendant's costs at $25,000, payable within 30 days.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their counterclaim as statute-barred.

The counterclaim arose from a dispute between parties involved in waste disposal and transportation businesses from 2011 to early 2014.

The respondents claimed over $350,000 in damages and sought a declaration that the appellants had no beneficial interest in their companies.

The appellants counterclaimed for landscaping services and a declaration of beneficial interest.

The motion judge found the counterclaim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The tolling period under section 11 of the Act, which suspended the limitation period during attempted third-party resolution, ended on February 3, 2014 when the respondents unequivocally terminated the resolution agreement.

The counterclaim was issued March 3, 2016, well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal.

The plaintiff, a commercial bakery, sought damages for stock spoilage and business interruption following a power outage caused by an ice storm.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy's exclusions for loss or damage to electrical transmission or distribution lines not located on the premises applied.

The court found that the policy exclusions clearly precluded coverage for both stock spoilage and business interruption losses caused by damage to off-premises electrical transmission lines.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the insurer.

The plaintiff, Devlan Construction Ltd., sought costs after successfully obtaining summary judgment against the defendant, 2345171 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Guelph Medical Imaging, for $105,599.74.

Devlan requested costs of $61,158.24 on a substantial indemnity basis or $50,965.19 on a partial indemnity scale.

Guelph Imaging proposed fixed costs of $30,000.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, counsel experience, expected costs, amount claimed/recovered, complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court found that Guelph Imaging's arguments, though eventually withdrawn, required Devlan to provide detailed accounting.

The court fixed costs at $60,000.00 in favour of Devlan Construction Ltd.

The plaintiff, Devlan Construction Ltd., moved for summary judgment against the defendant, 2345171 Ontario Inc. (Guelph Medical Imaging), for outstanding construction costs related to tenant improvements, including alleged extras.

The defendant disputed authorization for the extras, the accounting, alleged deficiencies, and the profit margin.

Applying the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework, the court found that authorization for the extras was clearly given, dismissed the deficiency claims due to lack of pleading and evidence, and resolved the accounting and profit issues in favour of the plaintiff.

Summary judgment was granted for $105,599.74 plus pre-judgment interest, and funds paid into court to lift a construction lien were ordered to be paid out to the plaintiff.

Appeal from conviction and sentence for violations of the Building Code Act and Planning Act.

The appellants operated a garden centre on property zoned within the Oak Ridges Moraine without required permits and in violation of zoning restrictions.

The trial court convicted both appellants on multiple counts and imposed substantial fines.

The appellants appealed on six grounds, including challenges to the rejection of a legal non-conforming use defence, the refusal to adjourn sentencing, and a prior s. 11(b) delay application.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no legal error in the trial court's application of zoning law principles or procedural rulings.

The applicant, Mayor Justin Altmann, sought to quash parts of a by-law passed by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, arguing they were ultra vires and beyond Council's authority under the Municipal Act.

The by-law imposed sanctions on the Mayor for failing to issue an apology as previously directed by Council, following an Integrity Commissioner's report on harassment complaints.

The court found that certain terms of the by-law, which restricted the Mayor's communication with staff and access to municipal facilities, constituted unauthorized penalties not permitted by the Municipal Act or the Town's Code of Conduct.

Consequently, these "offending terms" were declared ultra vires and quashed.

The plaintiff purchaser and defendant vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The transaction failed to close after a dispute over zoning conditions and disclosure of OMB mediation details.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance and moved for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that while there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the equities favoured the defendant because the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court also dismissed the defendant's motion, as the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

Following a trial regarding a right of way over a laneway, both parties sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant was substantially successful at trial, having successfully restricted the right of way to pedestrian access only and defeated the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $70,000, discounting the requested amount to reflect the plaintiff's success on certain issues.