Messod Boussidan

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application for civil forfeiture of cash and marijuana grow equipment seized from the appellant's vehicle under the Civil Remedies Act.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires the province and violated the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding the Act's pith and substance relates to property and civil rights, not criminal law.

The court also held that section 11 of the Charter does not apply to civil forfeiture proceedings as they do not result in true penal consequences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs of the appeal, fixed at $6,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' application for leave to appeal, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought $13,257.73, while the defendants argued for $2,500.00.

The court found the plaintiffs' claimed costs excessive, noting that the participation of two counsel was unnecessary.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant, Gold Financial Corp., appealed two orders of the Superior Court of Justice and sought an order that one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the Puslinch land be paid into court.

The motion judge had concluded that neither the Notice nor the Share Pledge Agreement was entitled to any weight and that the appellant's General Security Agreement did not support any claim to an interest in the land.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal with costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Gold defendants sought leave to appeal a case management judge's order that refused to permit them to file a factum, make arguments in support of their co-defendants' motion for summary judgment, or bring their own summary judgment motion.

The case management judge had found that the Gold defendants deliberately breached a timetable they had devised, engaging in delaying tactics.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the case management judge's exercise of discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the integrity of the case management process.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application regarding property ownership.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was no evidence the respondent owned or paid for the property.

The court also upheld the costs order, noting the appellant pursued the application even after learning of the bankruptcy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The respondent, a former director of a corporation, sought a declaration that his insurer owed a duty to defend him against a counterclaim brought by the corporation.

The insurer denied coverage based on an 'insured v. insured' exclusion clause in the Directors' and Officers' Liability Policy.

The application judge found a duty to defend, relying on American authorities that considered the purpose of the exclusion clause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the exclusion clause was unambiguous and clearly excluded coverage for claims brought by the corporation against its directors.

As the claim fell outside coverage, there was no duty to defend.

The appellant appealed a decision holding that Ontario was neither the appropriate nor the convenient jurisdiction for his legal malpractice claim against a New York law firm.

The appellant had commenced the Ontario action after a New York court precluded him from continuing his litigation there due to his repeated failure to obey court orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that New York was the convenient forum.

The appellants appealed a judgment permitting the respondent to enforce an Illinois judgment against them in Ontario.

The Illinois judgment arose from the appellant's unauthorized access to the respondent's voice mail system.

The appellants argued that the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause, that the claims were barred by res judicata from an Ontario mediation, and that the damages were penal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that jurisdictional objections must be raised in the foreign court, the claims were expressly excepted from the Ontario settlement, and the damages were compensatory.

The appellants, an investment firm and its employee, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for breach of fiduciary duty and awarding $288,846 in damages to an elderly client.

The employee had executed 68 unauthorized trades in the client's non-discretionary account, contrary to her investment objectives and professional rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the employee's assumption of total control over the account created a fiduciary relationship, that the client did not ratify the trades due to the employee's reassurances, and that restitutionary damages were appropriate.

The appellants sought to recover $15,380 in overpayments made to the respondent bookkeeper, who had increased his hourly rate from $20 to $30 following the death of the appellant's principal.

The trial judge found no agreement for the increase but denied restitutionary relief, citing the appellant's carelessness in paying the invoices.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law, as carelessness is irrelevant to the recovery of money paid under an honest mistake of fact.

The court ordered the return of the overpayment plus costs.

The appellants, Ontario residents, sold a Florida lot to the respondents.

A dispute arose, and the respondents obtained a default judgment in Florida for US$260,000 after the appellants failed to properly defend the action.

The respondents sought to enforce the judgment in Ontario, which had grown to approximately C$800,000.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 'real and substantial connection' test applies to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The Court found that the Florida court properly took jurisdiction and that the appellants failed to establish the defences of fraud, natural justice, or public policy.

The appeal was dismissed, and the foreign judgment was enforced.

The appellant corporation issued share certificates as part of a stock roll program, representing them as fully paid when they were not.

A third party pledged one of these certificates to the respondent bank as collateral for a loan.

When the borrower defaulted, the bank sought to realize on the shares, but the appellant refused to acknowledge the bank as the valid owner.

The trial judge found the bank was a good faith purchaser and granted an oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the bank was a good faith purchaser, the appellant was estopped from denying the validity of the certificate, and the restriction on transfer did not prevent the transfer to the bank.

The court also dismissed the third-party claim against a credit union for vicarious liability.

The appellants, having successfully appealed a trial decision regarding the enforcement of a Florida judgment, moved for the payment out of court of moneys they had posted as security for costs.

The respondents, who had been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, moved for a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal's judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' motion, finding it just to maintain the status quo and keep the security in court pending the Supreme Court appeal due to the appellants' non-resident status and potential hardship.

The Court granted the respondents' motion for a stay of execution, accepting an irrevocable $1 million guarantee from the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company as satisfactory security.

The appellants sought to enforce a Florida default judgment for damages arising from a real estate transaction against the respondents in Ontario.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the Florida judgment was obtained by fraud and its enforcement would contravene public policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against most respondents, holding that the fraud defence requires newly discovered facts that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, which the respondents failed to demonstrate.

The public policy defence was also rejected.

However, the appeal was dismissed against one respondent whose absolute discharge from bankruptcy released her from the judgment debt.

The appellants purchased two condominiums as tax-sheltered investments.

The vendor failed to convey title, and the appellants obtained an unpaid judgment against the vendor.

The appellants applied to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program for compensation.

The Program and the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal denied compensation for business and investment costs, allowing only land and construction costs, and deducted tax savings.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the entire transaction, including service contracts integral to the condominium purchase, but agreed that tax savings must be deducted from the total financial loss.