Mauro Marchioni

The sureties argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with a bail forfeiture hearing because the certificate of default was improperly completed under s. 770(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the argument, holding that strict formal compliance with Form 33 is not required where the certificate adequately signals the default and the surrounding record clarifies the circumstances.

The certificate may be amplified by transcripts and other evidence at the forfeiture hearing.

The purpose of the document is to alert the sureties to the alleged default and trigger the hearing process, not to function as a fully particularized pleading.

Clerical imperfections in completing the certificate do not deprive the court of jurisdiction.

A cheque‑cashing company sought to recover losses arising from a fraudulent mortgage scheme and the negotiation of a bank draft bearing a forged endorsement.

The plaintiff alleged negligence and fraud against multiple parties involved in the mortgage transaction, including the property owner, a lawyer, a lender, and a relative of the homeowners.

The court found that the homeowners were not involved in the fraud and dismissed claims against them and other defendants, including the lawyer and lender.

The court declined to recognize a novel duty of care owed by the drawer of a bank draft to a subsequent negotiator and held that the plaintiff’s loss arose from the strict liability tort of conversion when the draft with a forged endorsement was negotiated.

Liability was established only against the relative who participated in the mortgage fraud.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Four days before the hearing, the defendant delivered a detailed responding affidavit alleging accounting irregularities.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment to deliver reply evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The defendant opposed, arguing Rule 20 does not permit reply evidence by a moving party.

The court held that the moving party in a summary judgment motion may deliver reply evidence to ensure the court can gain a full appreciation of the facts.

The adjournment was granted, leave to file reply evidence was given, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs thrown away.

In a costs endorsement following earlier proceedings, the court reviewed written submissions from the plaintiff regarding costs and interest.

The responding defendants filed no materials and did not respond to correspondence from the court.

The court determined that the plaintiff had incorrectly calculated prejudgment interest by using post‑judgment quarterly rates.

The plaintiff was directed to resubmit corrected prejudgment interest calculations within 21 days, after which the court would provide reasons on costs and interest.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for the monetary value of a 5% ownership interest in a radio station and for the return of capital injections she made to the station.

The defendants argued she lacked standing because the funds were advanced via corporate cheques from her companies.

The court rejected this defence, finding the defendants knew they were dealing with her personally.

The court awarded the plaintiff $83,915.75 against the corporate defendant.

The corporate defendant's cross-claim against the former owner for indemnity was granted.

Claims against the individual defendants were dismissed.

The plaintiff sought indemnification for deposit refunds paid to purchasers after a registered home builder entered agreements to construct homes despite lacking a valid registration under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The court found the builder fundamentally breached twenty-two Agreements of Purchase and Sale by contracting without legal capacity to construct the homes.

As a result, purchasers were entitled to statutory deposit refunds under s. 14 of the Act.

The court rejected arguments that certain payments were loans rather than deposits and held that the indemnitor’s personal indemnity obligation was not reduced by a separate surety bond.

Judgment was granted for the refunded deposits, administrative fees, and statutory interest.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning a commercial tenancy dispute and a counterclaim for damages arising from the landlord’s termination of the tenancy and demolition of the building, the successful tenant sought costs exceeding $185,000.

The landlord argued it should instead receive costs or that no costs be awarded, citing the tenant’s failure to pay rent as ordered, allegations of perjury, and late disclosure of evidence.

The court held that the general principle that costs follow the event applied, as none of the landlord’s objections justified departing from that rule.

However, the court found the tenant’s litigation tactics—particularly its refusal to pay rent despite opportunities to resolve the dispute and regain the premises—warranted a reduction in the costs claimed.

Costs were therefore reduced by approximately one‑third.

A commercial landlord‑tenant dispute arose after the landlord halted renovations at nightclub premises and later began demolition while litigation over an alleged lease breach was pending.

Earlier proceedings determined the tenant had not breached the lease and that the landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment.

At this damages trial, the court considered whether the landlord was liable for losses during a seven‑month delay period and whether demolition prior to termination established liability for the remainder of the lease term.

The court found the landlord wrongfully expelled the tenant and commenced demolition before termination, thereby destroying the leased premises.

Damages were awarded for the seven‑month period and for the balance of the lease term, but the court declined to award damages for equipment loss due to insufficient proof and the tenant’s failure to mitigate.