Melvyn Lloyd Solmon

The moving party sought review of a motion judge's decision granting a vesting order in an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The moving party argued the responding party delayed in renewing the motion and that the moving party was prejudiced by the denial of rent or use of the purchase money.

The Court of Appeal found the responding party had not breached court orders regarding rent, and that the moving party had repeatedly breached its contractual obligations.

The motion to set aside the motion judge's order was dismissed.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for summary judgment for over $1 million in unpaid legal fees against the corporate defendants and the individual defendant as guarantor.

The defendants sought to dismiss the motion and have the accounts referred for assessment under the Solicitors Act or the court's inherent jurisdiction, citing special circumstances.

The court found that the law firm failed to advise the clients of their right to assess the accounts and failed to render accounts every 60 days as agreed.

The court concluded that special circumstances existed, dismissed the summary judgment motion, and ordered the accounts to be referred for assessment.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent tenant damages for overpayment of rent, common area maintenance (CAM) charges, and the cost of replacing a roof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the commercial lease.

The court upheld the findings that the lease unambiguously required the landlord to replace the roof, that the tenant's calculation of additional rent during renewal periods was correct, and that the landlord's claim for historical CAM charges was statute-barred because a party cannot indefinitely toll a limitation period by delaying the issuance of invoices.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion for approval of the sale of a commercial property co-owned by the insolvent estate and a third party.

The sale was opposed by certain beneficiaries who argued the sale price was improvident and the ETDL failed to follow court-ordered sales processes.

The co-owner initially opposed the sale but later consented.

The court applied the Soundair principles and approved the sale, finding that the property had been adequately marketed, the price was not improvident given the property's derelict state and ongoing operating losses, and the co-owner had waived any procedural irregularities.

Following a settlement in which allegations of fraud and deception were withdrawn, the parties jointly requested a redaction order to limit court openness.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the parties failed to establish the requirements set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, as no important public interest was identified and no submissions were provided to justify the restriction on court openness.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application seeking to set aside employment agreements between the respondent corporation and an employee, alleging the agreements were oppressive and breached a family law undertaking.

They also appealed the refusal to remove the respondent as a trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings that the undertaking had expired, the negotiations were not secretive, and the agreements were beneficial to the corporation.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision not to remove the trustee.

The City of Toronto expropriated a property owned by the Multanis.

Dramel Limited and other entities held charges against the property.

Dramel brought a motion to determine its priority rights to a section 25 settlement offer made by the City.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal adjourned Dramel's motion to proceed in writing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the future conduct of the compensation hearing, despite the original owners' ongoing difficulties in retaining legal counsel.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's officers failed to disclose required information, made false statements on applications, lacked financial responsibility after a $30 million loan was called in, and traded vehicles while unregistered.

The Tribunal found that while the officers did fail to disclose certain information and made false statements regarding the loan, the Registrar did not prove the appellant lacked financial responsibility or traded vehicles illegally in Ontario.

The Tribunal concluded that outright refusal was not required to protect the public interest and ordered the Registrar to approve the registration subject to strict conditions.

The plaintiff, Liberty Tax Service, Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from violating post-termination non-compete and non-solicitation obligations under a franchise agreement, and to compel the return of client records.

The court found a strong prima facie case of competition but not of solicitation, and ordered the return of documents, but declined to grant an interlocutory injunction due to the lateness in the tax season and the potential prejudice to innocent clients.

Following a ten-day trial regarding a commercial lease dispute, the court issued an endorsement to finalize the calculation of damages.

The court held that the landlord's claims for unpaid common area maintenance (CAM) charges from 2009 to 2011 were statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court declined to order equitable set-off for either party, finding the tenant solely responsible for its rent overpayments and the landlord guilty of misfeasance regarding CAM charges.

The court also rejected the landlord's 'Rent Paid Theory' for recalculating rent, awarding the tenant a total of $1,359,799.88 in damages.

On a s. 37 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act appeal/motion, the moving parties sought to strike or expunge a transcript from a s. 163 examination and obtain a fresh examination on the basis that the trustee had not disclosed prior unserved actions concerning certain properties.

The court held that the trustee's investigative powers under s. 163 are broad, that no duty of advance disclosure arose on these facts, and that the examined party was not then a defendant in the prior actions.

The court further held that neither moving party was an aggrieved person within s. 37, the challenge was not brought within a reasonable time, and there was no basis to interfere with the trustee's discretionary decisions.

The appeal/motion was dismissed with partial indemnity costs to the trustee.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario's (FSRA) decision to investigate them, issue a summons, and issue a Notice of Proposal regarding alleged contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for being premature, as there were ongoing proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the administrative process must run its course and that the statutory scheme provided an adequate alternative remedy through a de novo hearing before the tribunal.

The appellant initiated an application seeking various reliefs concerning his parents' guardianship and property, including removing an attorney and an accounting for alleged undue influence.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant abandoned key challenges, including those related to powers of attorney and capacity.

The application judge dismissed the remaining claims, finding no live issues or cognizable causes of action.

The appellant appealed, arguing errors in the dismissal and the costs order, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the abandoned claims left no relevant issues for adjudication and upheld the discretionary costs order.

The Respondent brought two motions to consolidate proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The first motion sought to combine separate proceedings initiated by the applicants in response to a second Notice of Proposal (NOP2).

The second motion sought to combine the consolidated NOP2 proceeding with an earlier proceeding relating to a first Notice of Proposal (NOP1).

The Tribunal granted the first motion, finding significant commonality of facts and law among the NOP2 applicants.

The Tribunal dismissed the second motion, finding little commonality between NOP1 and NOP2, and noting that combining them would cause prejudice and undue delay to the NOP1 proceeding.

The applicants, a licensed mortgage brokerage and its principal broker, sought to vary a motion judge's decision quashing their application for judicial review of a Notice of Proposal issued by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA).

They also sought judicial review of FSRA's decisions to publish the Notice of Proposal on its website pursuant to its Transparency Guidance and to refuse to publish the applicants' Request for Hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to vary, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the application was premature.

The Court also dismissed the remaining judicial review application, holding that FSRA's publication decisions did not affect the applicants' legal rights and were not amenable to judicial review.

In any event, the Court found the decisions to be reasonable and consistent with FSRA's statutory objects.

This is a costs endorsement following appeals and cross-appeals in three inter-related actions.

The Court of Appeal had previously granted Samuel Jacob Berkovits' appeal in the "Murder for Hire Action" and dismissed all other appeals and cross-appeals brought by Harold Gerstel and the Gerstel parties.

The parties were unable to agree on costs.

The court found the Berkovits parties to be more successful overall.

It ordered Harold Gerstel to pay $28,000 in all-inclusive costs to Samuel Jacob Berkovits for his unsuccessful cross-appeal in the Murder for Hire Action.

Additionally, the Gerstel parties were held jointly and severally liable to the Berkovits parties for $28,000 in all-inclusive costs for their unsuccessful appeal in the Interference Action.

No costs were awarded in the "Town Crier Action" due to divided success.

Maria Konstan and Samuel Jacob Berkovits had already settled their costs for the Murder for Hire appeal and trial.

The plaintiff, Tri-South Developments Inc., sued the defendant, 583167 Ontario Inc., for breach of contract, waiver/estoppel, and unjust enrichment related to a failed condominium development project.

The core dispute revolved around a "Severance Condition" in their Contribution Agreement (CA), which required Tri-South to obtain land severance by a specific date.

Tri-South failed to meet this condition, leading to the automatic termination of the CA.

Tri-South alleged the defendant breached its duty of good faith by not disclosing its intent to rely on the severance date and by misleading them regarding design approvals.

The court dismissed all of Tri-South's claims, finding no breach of good faith, no waiver or estoppel by the defendant, and no unjust enrichment, as the plaintiff had control over the condition and failed to meet its obligations.

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 plaintiff tenant brought an action against the defendant landlord regarding a commercial lease for a grocery store.

The parties disputed the calculation of rent, responsibility for a roof replacement, and the calculation of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges.

The court found that the landlord knowingly inflated CAM invoices by charging for non-common areas, manipulating the gross leasable area, and charging unrecoverable management fees.

The court also held that the lease allocated the cost of replacing the roof to the landlord, awarding the tenant $331,746.03.

Furthermore, the court agreed with the tenant's interpretation of the rent calculation provisions and found that the tenant had overpaid rent.

The tenant was awarded $493,269.66 in restitution for unjust enrichment.

The landlord's counterclaim for unpaid rent and CAM charges was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, vulnerable seniors, alleged predatory lending practices, misrepresentations, and inadequate legal representation led to a large, unconscionable mortgage on their debt-free home.

Several defendants, including Canada Choice Investments Inc. (CCI), Anas Ayyoub, Blossom Rabinowitz, and Edmond Ohayon, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them, arguing no reasonable cause of action was disclosed or that claims were scandalous/irrelevant.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were adequately pleaded, met the high threshold for surviving a motion to strike, and that the interests of justice strongly supported allowing the action to proceed to trial.