Melvyn L. Solmon

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for an assessment of the respondent law firm's accounts, the respondent sought costs on a composite partial, substantial, and full indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicants' persistence in making unfounded and scurrilous allegations against the integrity of the late Edward Greenspan and his firm justified an award of full indemnity costs.

The court reduced the claimed amount by disallowing fees for work performed by the represented clients themselves and for a settled security for costs motion, ultimately awarding the respondent $150,262.92 all-inclusive, plus $1,500 for costs submissions.

The applicants sought an assessment of the legal accounts rendered by the respondent criminal defence law firm, alleging overcharging and breach of fixed-price and maximum-price retainer agreements.

The court found no fixed-price agreement existed for the preliminary inquiry and that the firm did not overcharge under the maximum-price contract for the trial phase.

The court also held that allegations of deficient legal services were barred by issue estoppel, having been dismissed in prior criminal proceedings.

Finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment outside the statutory limitation period, the application was dismissed.

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.

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into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.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 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 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 applicant held a third mortgage on a property and challenged the sale of the property by the assignee of the first mortgage, arguing the assignee failed to issue a fresh notice of sale.

The applicant moved to convert the application into an action to add allegations of fraud, while the respondents moved to dismiss the application.

The court granted the motion to convert the application into an action, finding the record insufficient to deny the investors the ability to pursue their claims.

However, the court ruled on the legal issue, holding that under the Mortgages Act, an assignee is not required to issue a fresh notice of sale if the interested parties received written notice of the assignment.

The plaintiff landlord sued its insurer after the insurer denied a claim under an employee dishonesty policy.

The plaintiff alleged its property manager stole rent money and misused a corporate credit card.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the property manager was an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the property manager was an employee based on the level of control and the nature of the relationship.

The court awarded the plaintiff $58,761 for the stolen rent but dismissed the credit card claim, finding it was a debtor-creditor arrangement.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for bad faith and punitive damages, finding the insurer handled the complex claim fairly.

Aragon brought an application for a declaration that Piller and its tenants were obstructing Aragon's right of way over an L-shaped parcel of land.

Piller brought a cross-application claiming it had acquired possessory title to the L-shaped land and a portion of Aragon's land through adverse possession by its tenants, and that Aragon had abandoned its right of way.

The court found that Piller's tenants, as trespassers, did not meet the high threshold for adverse possession, particularly the inconsistent use requirement, as their use was not inconsistent with the servient owner's intended use.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Aragon or its predecessors intended to abandon the expressly granted right of way.

Aragon's application was granted, and Piller's cross-application was dismissed.

Piller was ordered to remove the obstructions.

The plaintiff, the former manager of the defendant investment fund, sued for fees and damages following the termination of its management agreement.

The defendant fund counterclaimed, alleging the manager was terminated for cause due to material breaches of the standard of care, particularly regarding its handling of the fund's liquidity crisis and its recommendation to enter into a high-interest loan rather than suspending redemptions.

The court found that the manager materially breached the standard of care, justifying the termination.

However, the fund's counterclaim for damages was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The manager was awarded certain unpaid fees accrued prior to termination.

The applicant sought a determination of his rights under a settlement agreement, specifically requesting an order that the respondents execute an unamended standard LawPro release.

The respondents argued the release required amendments to carve out their continuing action against a non-settling defendant and to exclude the applicant's obligations as a bare trustee.

The court found it had jurisdiction under Rule 14.05(3)(d) to interpret the agreement.

Applying principles of commercial contract interpretation, the court held that the parties' agreement contemplated a modified release tailored to the specific litigation, and ordered the execution of the respondents' amended version.

The appellants appealed an arbitration decision that dismissed their claim for rectification of a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The appellants argued that the right of first offer clause contained a mutual mistake by allowing a partial take-up of shares, and sought to rectify it to require an all-or-nothing purchase.

The arbitrator found no prior common intention to support rectification.

On appeal, the court held that the issues raised by the appellants were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after she failed to attend the trial.

She explained her absence was due to generalized anxiety disorder, feeling overwhelmed after her lawyer removed himself from the record on the eve of trial, and a pre-trial judge's prediction that an adjournment would be denied or granted on onerous terms.

The court found her explanation reasonable, noting she moved promptly to set aside the judgment and presented an arguable defence based on an oral family agreement and part performance.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The plaintiff, a former associate lawyer, brought a motion to consolidate her wrongful dismissal action against her former employer with a subsequent libel action against the employer and their legal counsel.

The libel action arose from comments made by the employer's counsel to a legal publication regarding the wrongful dismissal pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that doing so would likely force the defendants' counsel to step down due to conflicts of interest and risk breaching solicitor-client privilege.

Instead, the court ordered a stay of the libel action pending the resolution of the wrongful dismissal action.

The applicant employer sought a determination that it was entitled to deduct withholding tax and employer statutory contributions from a settlement payment resolving an employment dispute.

The respondent employee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce the minutes of settlement, arguing that legal costs payable to counsel were expressly to be paid without deductions.

The court held that the minutes clearly distinguished between legal costs payable directly to counsel and employment income payments subject to withholding tax.

The employer was not entitled to deduct withholding tax from the legal fee payment or subtract CPP, EI, and Employer Health Tax contributions from the settlement amount.

However, the court declined to enforce the default penalty clause because the deductions resulted from a mistaken interpretation of tax obligations rather than deliberate default.

The defendants moved to settle the order following a previous decision striking portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court addressed the sealing of motion materials and the impact of the Apology Act, 2009 on the pleadings.

The court ordered the contested documents sealed from the public file and confirmed that references to an apology in the statement of claim must be struck, as the Apology Act prevents such statements from being used to establish liability.

The defendants brought a motion under rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike or expunge large portions of a statement of claim arising from a wrongful dismissal dispute between a lawyer and her former employer.

The court reviewed extensive jurisprudence on the proper function of pleadings, emphasizing that pleadings must contain concise statements of material facts rather than evidence, argument, or scandalous allegations.

Applying proportionality and the rules of pleading, the court struck numerous paragraphs and subparagraphs of the statement of claim that were found to contain evidentiary detail, inflammatory allegations, or unnecessary particulars more appropriately addressed through discovery or particulars.

Certain causes of action, including negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation, were struck with leave to amend due to insufficient particulars.

The plaintiff was granted leave to deliver a fresh amended statement of claim, and the defendants were permitted to file a fresh amended statement of defence.