Michael A. Jaeger

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to add three individual respondents as defendants in her wrongful dismissal action, alleging they were common employers.

The motion judge found the claim against them statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period, as the appellant knew or ought to have known the material facts supporting her claim at the time of termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's application of discoverability and common employer principles, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found them jointly and severally liable for $120,000 plus prejudgment interest to the respondent.

The appeal primarily focused on the personal liability of one appellant under a personal guarantee related to a joint venture agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the case was suitable for summary judgment despite being a simplified procedure action, and upholding the validity and enforceability of the personal guarantee, which imposed personal liability.

The plaintiff, Leanne Briscoe, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, 9327959 Canada Inc. and Stephan Yaworski, seeking repayment of a $150,000 loan.

The loan was evidenced by a promissory note that stipulated repayment by December 4, 2021, or upon the sale of a property, whichever occurred earlier, plus interest.

The property was not sold by the deadline, triggering the repayment clause.

The defendants argued the note was unenforceable due to a lack of consensus ad idem, adverse market conditions, and the rights of prior lenders, claiming verbal agreements supplemented the written terms.

The court found the promissory note clear and unambiguous, and that the defendants failed to provide specific, coherent evidence to support their claims, relying instead on bald allegations.

Exercising its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $195,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $120,000 based on a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and a Personal Guarantee.

The defendants argued the Guarantee lacked consideration, was invalid due to drafting errors, and that the JVA only required repayment if the project realized a profit.

They also contended that summary judgment was inappropriate for a simplified procedure action.

The court found the Guarantee valid, noting the plaintiff's reliance on it for her investment, and rejected the defendants' interpretation of the JVA based on the defendant's subsequent acknowledgments of the debt.

The court also found the corporate defendant unjustly enriched.

Summary judgment was deemed appropriate given the document-driven nature of the case and the undisputed material facts.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a cross-appeal and an order for security for costs against the responding parties.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was not substantial, there was no prejudice, and the cross-appeal had merit.

The court also granted the security for costs, finding good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and the appellants had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The court noted the responding parties' conduct, including changes in counsel and failure to comply with previous orders, contributed to the finding of vexatiousness.

This is an appeal from an order directing the payment of funds held in court (net proceeds from a home sale) to the respondent in partial satisfaction of a summary judgment against Paige Imola.

The appellant, Luigi Imola, had transferred his interest in the home to his wife, Paige Imola, years prior to avoid creditors.

He argued for a resulting trust over half the funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's factual findings, including the appellant's intention to gift the property and his subsequent actions, rebutted any presumption of a resulting trust.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to add a new party and claim damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that the proposed claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary record to rebut the presumption of discoverability under section 5(2) of the Act.

The motion to amend the pleadings and add the party was dismissed.

This decision addresses two consolidated proceedings.

The plaintiff, Julie Craven, sought substantial damages from the Estate of Andrew Peter Osidacz for a series of violent acts, including assault, the wrongful death of their son Jared, and attempted murder.

Additionally, Ms. Craven claimed that Michael Osidacz, as the estate trustee, breached his fiduciary duties by unreasonably defending the estate, leading to the dissipation of assets.

The court assessed damages for Ms. Craven, awarding her $565,000.00, and found the estate trustee personally liable to reimburse the estate for $71,277.98 in legal costs due to his imprudent and hostile litigation strategy.

The plaintiffs, Julie Craven and John Craven, brought an action for libel and intrusion upon seclusion against Richard Chmura, following the publication of highly disparaging statements and videos online.

The jury found for the plaintiffs, awarding general and punitive damages.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction to prevent further harm.

The court applied the two-prong test from *New York Fries*, finding a real possibility that the plaintiffs would not receive compensation due to the defendant's financial inability and history of unpaid costs awards.

A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from publishing any statements or depictions about the plaintiffs and mandating the removal of existing defamatory content.