Michael I. Binetti

The plaintiff developer entered into agreements of purchase and sale with the defendant for commercial properties, which included a mutual lease condition for a leaseback arrangement.

As the condition deadline approached, the defendant assured the plaintiff it would continue negotiating the leases but secretly sought board approval to sell the properties to a third party.

The defendant then terminated the agreements.

The court found the defendant breached its duty of good faith and honest performance, and was liable for negligent misrepresentation.

Applying promissory estoppel, the court held the defendant could not rely on its strict contractual rights to terminate.

The plaintiff was awarded $15.5 million in damages for lost profits.

The plaintiff brought a motion during trial for leave to withdraw an admission of fact contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The admission was based on a handwritten note produced by the defendant.

Midway through the trial, the defendant produced new documentary evidence, including emails, that contradicted the handwritten note and the admission.

Applying the tripartite test under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the new evidence raised a triable issue, provided a reasonable explanation for the withdrawal, and would not result in non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for an order compelling the defendants to produce a further and better affidavit of documents.

After the defendants filed their responding record and factum, the plaintiff filed multiple supplementary motion records containing new expert requests, which the defendants had no opportunity to review before leaving the country.

The court adjourned the motion sine die, directing the plaintiff to file a single, consolidated motion record and factum in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure before the motion could proceed.

The plaintiffs, taxicab plate owners, brought a proposed $1.7 billion class action against the City of Toronto, alleging negligence in the enforcement of its taxicab bylaws against Uber and in the enactment of a new bylaw permitting private transportation companies.

The plaintiffs moved for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the City's enactment of the bylaw was a legislative function immune from private damage suits, and its enforcement of the bylaws was a public duty that did not create a private law duty of care to the taxicab plate owners for pure economic losses.

Following a divided outcome on an application regarding taxi licensing by-laws, the intervenor, Taxiworkers Association of Ontario, sought costs against the applicant.

The court denied costs for the intervention and injunction motions because the intervenor was not a necessary party and participated on its own initiative.

However, the court awarded the intervenor $2,500 in costs for the main application, recognizing that its evidence was critical to the court's determination of the notice issue.