Michael D. Magonet

The plaintiff, Gerenby Investments Limited, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Paramount Franchise Inc., 1726837 Ontario Inc., and 2223541 Ontario Inc., for breach of a commercial lease.

The defendants failed to pay rent and abandoned the premises, and did not oppose the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the breach, the plaintiff's mitigation efforts, or the defendants' alleged misrepresentation defence.

Damages were awarded for unpaid rent, mitigation costs, and interest, along with substantial indemnity costs as per the lease agreement.

The plaintiff, Stainless Steel Products (SSP), brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay.

The action sought payment of a default judgment from Ohio and a declaration that a property transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering factors such as the explanation for delay, inadvertence, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay satisfactorily explained, the failure to meet the deadline inadvertent, and no significant prejudice to the defendants.

Despite uncertainty regarding the promptness of the motion, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order in the interests of justice.

The defendant/moving party, Ms. Chen, brought a motion to set aside or vary a prior summary judgment that granted specific performance to the plaintiff/responding party, Mr. Lam, for the sale of a residential property.

Ms. Chen alleged that Mr. Lam misrepresented facts regarding the property's uniqueness and failed to disclose the purchase of another property, constituting fraud or misleading the court.

The court dismissed Ms. Chen's motion, finding that Mr. Lam's explanations for his property dealings were rational, the "fresh evidence" was not material to the original decision on uniqueness, and the evidence could have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to the summary judgment.

The court concluded that Mr. Lam did not knowingly or recklessly make material misrepresentations or commit fraud.

The plaintiff, an accountant, claimed additional compensation for work performed on two land development projects for the defendants, arguing this work was outside his initial accounting retainer.

The defendants contended that the plaintiff's compensation already included this work.

The court found no explicit agreement for additional payment for the development work and awarded the plaintiff damages based on restitutionary quantum meruit, valuing his substantial and substantive involvement in the projects.

The plaintiff was entirely successful on a motion for summary judgment for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the plaintiff.

Finding the plaintiff's claimed fees and disbursements to be fair, reasonable, and proportional, the court awarded costs of $51,886.75 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

A dispute had arisen over easements, leading to negotiations for an abatement.

The defendant vendor's lawyer faxed a written offer for a $20,000 abatement, which the plaintiff's lawyer accepted in writing before the deadline.

The defendant argued the offer was verbally rejected or withdrawn during a phone call.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the offer was validly accepted in writing and never repudiated.

The court granted specific performance, finding the property unique to the plaintiff, and awarded damages for costs thrown away.

The defendants sought to vary previous cost orders to include Peter Merrill, a non-party and owner of the plaintiff corporations, on grounds of fraud and abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiffs' underlying action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that a fraudulent undertaking regarding financial capacity was given to the court during an interlocutory injunction motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, amending the cost orders to include Peter Merrill personally, finding that the due diligence requirement for new evidence was dispensed with due to allegations of fraud.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order striking out their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, permitting the appellants to amend their pleading.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs for both the appeal and the underlying motion.

The court found that the appellants' modest success on appeal did not warrant costs in their favour, as it represented a further indulgence to correct pleading deficiencies that multiple prior iterations and a case conference had failed to remedy.

The motion judge's costs order in favour of the respondents was varied downward by $5,000 to reflect the appellants' limited success.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, seeking to freeze their assets based on an alleged debt owed under a Repayment Agreement.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants were planning to move to the United States and dissipate their Ontario assets to avoid judgment.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case for the debt, there was insufficient evidence to prove a real risk that the defendants were removing assets from the jurisdiction to avoid judgment.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was dismissed.

Dispute arising after the sale of a jointly owned apartment building pursuant to a partition order.

The applicant purchased the property from the respondent co-owners and the parties disagreed over responsibility for the real estate commission and the fees of an independent lawyer appointed to oversee the sale process.

The court held that the agreement of purchase and sale made the respondent vendors solely responsible for the real estate commission, despite earlier sale conditions contemplating shared responsibility.

However, the court found the applicant remained obligated to pay its 25% share of the independent lawyer’s post‑agreement fees because the lawyer had been appointed to act impartially for the benefit of all partners.

An order was made directing payment of the applicant’s share of those fees from escrow funds.

Co-owners of a Toronto property brought an application under the Partition Act seeking an order for sale and directions regarding the method of sale.

While all parties agreed the property should be sold, they disagreed on whether the sale should proceed by public auction or by sealed bid.

The court discounted partisan affidavit evidence from the parties and professional firms with financial interests in the process.

Emphasizing the need to safeguard the integrity of the sales process and maximize value, the court concluded that a sealed-bid process was preferable in circumstances where some co-owners intended to bid on the property.

The court ordered the sale to proceed by sealed bid under the supervision of an independent sales officer, with final process terms subject to court approval.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a Québec civil judgment arising from a loan of $30,000 that remained unpaid.

The respondent argued that she had not been properly served in the Québec proceedings.

The court reviewed the common law principles governing recognition of interprovincial judgments, noting that the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act does not apply to Québec judgments.

Applying the test for enforcement of foreign judgments, the court found that the Québec court had jurisdiction, the judgment was obtained according to the rules of that court, and the principles of natural justice were respected.

The Ontario court granted judgment enforcing the Québec judgment in the amount awarded.