Melvyn Lloyd Solmon

The appellant, Skyline Real Estate Acquisitions (III) Inc., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its application for the return of a $3.25 million deposit.

Skyline had refused to close on an agreement to purchase two shopping plazas, alleging the vendor (Peterborough Retail Portfolio LP) failed to satisfy conditions related to key tenant tenancies (Walmart and Dollarama).

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the vendor had made commercially reasonable efforts and provided substantial assurances, while the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith by insisting on strict technical compliance to exit a contract it no longer desired.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

This endorsement addresses three causes of action (conspiracy, abuse of process, and harassment) advanced by the Gerstel parties in their counterclaims, which were not explicitly determined in the court's prior Reasons for Decision.

The court dismissed all three claims.

The conspiracy claim failed due to a lack of common design between the alleged conspirators.

The abuse of process claim failed because the primary objective of the opposing parties' action was to redress civil wrongs, not for a collateral purpose.

The novel tort of harassment was not recognized, as the facts of the consolidated proceedings did not meet the high threshold for creating a new legal remedy.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The parties had negotiated the terms over several months and signed the agreement, along with a side letter allowing the defendant's lawyer 48 hours to review the legal wording.

The defendant subsequently attempted to renegotiate the business terms and ultimately repudiated the agreement when the property's value increased.

The court found that a binding agreement had been reached and that the side letter did not permit renegotiation of business terms.

Because the property was uniquely suited to the plaintiff's business needs and damages would be inadequate, the court ordered specific performance.

The applicant, Growthworks Canadian Fund Ltd. (the Fund), sought an order in CCAA proceedings that its former manager, Growthworks WV Management Ltd. (the former manager), as the sole Class C shareholder, was not entitled to further dividends or payments upon the Fund's dissolution.

The former manager claimed entitlement to $672,390.61 as an incentive payment (IPA payment) on dissolution, arguing it was a debt or payable under specific share conditions.

The court dismissed the former manager's claim, finding the payment was not a debt and that the conditions for payment under the Class C share articles, specifically the performance tests, were not met as of the dissolution date due to the Fund's negative annualized rate of return.

Six consolidated actions arising from a bitter, multi-year dispute between two competing 'cash for gold' businesses in Toronto.

The feud escalated into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.

The employee sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The court found the hitman liable for malicious prosecution and both the hitman and the competitor liable for abuse of process, awarding the employee $221,775 in damages.

In the corporate actions, the court found the opposing business owner liable for nuisance and intentional interference with economic relations for using 'sandwichboarders' to harass the competitor's business, awarding $200,000.

The competitor was awarded $50,000 for defamation regarding statements made to a newspaper.

The opposing business owner's claims for defamation and misappropriation of personality were dismissed.

Six consolidated actions arising from a bitter, multi-year dispute between two competing 'cash for gold' businesses in Toronto.

The feud escalated into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.

The employee sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The court found the hitman liable for malicious prosecution and both the hitman and the competitor liable for abuse of process, awarding the employee $221,775 in damages.

In the corporate actions, the court found the opposing business owner liable for nuisance and intentional interference with economic relations for using 'sandwichboarders' to harass the competitor's business, awarding $200,000.

The competitor was awarded $50,000 for defamation regarding statements made to a newspaper.

The opposing business owner's claims for defamation and misappropriation of personality were dismissed.

Costco brought an application to enforce an international arbitral award and a U.S. District Court judgment against TicketOps for failing to remit funds owed to suppliers.

TicketOps opposed the application and brought a motion to convert it into an action, arguing a denial of natural justice and public policy concerns, including an allegation of bias because the arbitrator was Facebook friends with Costco's U.S. counsel.

The court dismissed TicketOps' motion and granted the application, finding no valid grounds under the Model Law to refuse recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards.

The appellants sought to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to remove a litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction as the order was interlocutory, not final, and quashed the appeal.

The panel then reconstituted as the Divisional Court and denied leave to appeal, finding no confusion in the relevant rule (r. 7.06(2)) and no general importance warranting leave.

The applicant purchaser sought the return of a $3.25 million deposit after refusing to close a $70 million commercial real estate transaction, alleging the respondent vendor failed to satisfy conditions regarding a Walmart estoppel certificate and a Dollarama lease extension.

The vendor argued the purchaser used minor technicalities to avoid closing due to the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the vendor made commercially reasonable efforts to satisfy the conditions and that the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith by refusing to accept the documents or negotiate.

The court concluded the purchaser repudiated the transaction and the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary motion record and subsequent affidavits delivered by the applicants in an application to assess the firm's accounts.

The applicants delivered the 1,229-page supplementary record over six years after the application was commenced, without leave, and after the applicants had already been cross-examined on their original affidavits.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the late delivery constituted improper case-splitting and an attempt to 'shore up' evidence post-cross-examination.

The court also denied the applicants' request to cross-examine a witness, finding they had forfeited the right by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.

The court dismissed a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Lemon dated June 22, 2021.

As no costs submissions were received from the parties, no costs were awarded.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its main appeal decision.

The court awarded the respondents costs for two pre-hearing motions ($1,000 for the Motion to Expedite and $7,000 for the Motion to Introduce Fresh Evidence).

Due to divided success on the appeal itself, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the appeal.

The lower court's costs order was not disturbed as the basis for the appellants' partial success on one issue was not argued at the application level.

The Gerstel parties brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled five-week trial after the Berkovits parties indicated they intended to call Hosseini, a defaulting party who had previously failed to attend discoveries, as a witness.

The moving parties argued they would be prejudiced if forced to proceed without examining Hosseini.

The court dismissed the adjournment request to avoid further delay, but ordered that Hosseini must submit to a two-day examination for discovery prior to trial, failing which he would be barred from testifying.

The appellant, King Square Limited (KSL), appealed a trial judgment that found it liable to pay further commissions to the respondent mortgage broker, OMJ Mortgage Capital Inc. (OMJ), for additional loan advances obtained from Firm Capital Corporation (FCC).

KSL argued these were new loans made outside the commission agreement's term.

The Court of Appeal, applying a deferential standard of review to contract interpretation, upheld the trial judge's finding that the additional advances were not new loans but rather further advances under the original loan commitment, which was secured during the currency of the commission agreement.

The court found the trial judge's interpretation commercially reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, owners of a servient tenement, appealed a decision dismissing their application to declare two registered rights of way (ROWs) abandoned by the dominant tenement owners.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that abandonment requires proof of a fixed intention never to assert the right, inferred from non-use and acquiescence to permanent obstructions.

The Court found a palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the 174 Strachan ROW, concluding it was completely obstructed by a permanent house extension and thus abandoned.

For the 176 Strachan ROW, which was only partially obstructed, the Court dismissed the appeal for total abandonment but allowed it for partial abandonment of the portion under the house extension, remitting this issue for further determination.

This appeal addressed the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction to appoint a representative defendant for an unincorporated association, specifically a trade union, in a wrongful termination claim.

The appellants argued that the Small Claims Court Rules contained an "omission" regarding such orders, precluding reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the Small Claims Court Rules themselves provided the necessary authority for such orders, and that reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure was discretionary but not essential.

The court found no legislative intent to exclude unincorporated associations from the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction, emphasizing the court's role in facilitating access to justice.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to examine two third-party witnesses in advance of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion for possession of mortgaged property.

The defendant argued the witnesses had evidence relevant to his claim that the plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented her financial position prior to signing their separation agreement, entitling him to equitable set-off.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence was not relevant to the enforcement of the separation agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the issue of financial disclosure had already been conclusively determined in prior family law proceedings, and issue estoppel applied to prevent re-litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and interim injunctive relief to compel the defendants to sign a severance application and to enjoin them from interfering with a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) proceeding.

The defendant Sedona Place Co-Ownership Inc. sought an order directing the proceeding to arbitration.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue involving an interest in land and that damages were not an adequate remedy.

The court also granted the mandatory injunction compelling the severance consent, noting the defendants' breach of the option agreement and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' development.

A prohibitory injunction preventing interference with the LPAT hearing was also granted based on the defendants' past conduct and potential irreparable harm.

The action was stayed to allow the parties to proceed to arbitration on agreed terms, with residual court jurisdiction.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 7.06(2) to substitute the plaintiff's litigation guardian, alleging the plaintiff's mother was not acting in her best interests.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants manipulated the mentally ill plaintiff into selling her property significantly below market value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the defendants' claims and characterizing the motion as an improper tactical manoeuvre to disrupt the litigation.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to amend their statement of defence to plead section 8 of the Interest Act.

The appellants argued they had a right to amend as a matter of law because the respondents had amended their claim, and that statutory defences do not need to be pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that affirmative and statutory defences must be pleaded to avoid trial by ambush.

The Court also upheld the Master's finding that the appellants' unexplained four-year delay in raising the defence resulted in presumed and actual non-compensable prejudice to the respondents, who lost opportunities to strategize and settle.