Michael Simaan

The appellants appealed a judgment finding Oren Nirenberg personally liable for inducing Zurich Insurance to breach its contract with the respondent.

The parties had a joint venture to share commissions from group insurance policies sold to Seneca College employees.

Nirenberg directed Zurich to forward all commissions to his company instead of the respondent, which Zurich did.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that Zurich's failure to pay the respondent was a breach of contract, and Nirenberg intentionally induced that breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order finding them in contempt of a receivership order.

They argued the motion judge erred by declining to draw an adverse inference against the receiver for failing to call two independent witnesses, and that this failure reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that drawing an adverse inference is discretionary and the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in his findings of fact and credibility.

The appellants and respondents acted as co-listing agents for a property and signed an agreement stating that 'any clients from open houses will be shared'.

A client met at an open house later purchased two other properties through the appellants, generating approximately $325,000 in commissions.

The respondents sued for half the commissions and succeeded at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the clause unambiguously required the agents to share clients introduced through the open house, which implicitly included sharing the resulting commissions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that it was a 'builder' under the applicable consumer protection legislation.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not using a quantitative analysis of the work and materials supplied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's preference for a qualitative or functional test over a quantitative test was not an error of law.

The Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant had primary control of the construction and was therefore a builder was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to decline jurisdiction and permanently stay its application against the respondent arbitration centre.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion based on forum non conveniens, as the underlying arbitration was rooted in Quebec.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to set aside additional relief granted by the motion judge that was neither requested by the respondent nor consistent with declining jurisdiction.

The appellant Rogers acquired Call-Net and subsequently terminated the respondent real estate broker's services without cause.

The broker sued for commission based on a termination clause that provided for payment based on work completed.

The trial judge awarded $800,000, representing 40% of the projected commission for a 10-year lease mandate.

On appeal, Rogers argued the trial judge misinterpreted the contract's termination and compensation clauses and improperly relied on subjective intentions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly interpreted the contract based on objective surrounding circumstances and the clear wording of the termination clause.

The broker's cross-appeal seeking a higher commission percentage was also dismissed.

The appellants, a school principal, teacher, and secretary, appealed a decision dismissing their motion to dismiss the respondent teacher's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants argued the dispute's essential character was covered by a collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the alleged conduct—including complaints to police, the Children's Aid Society, and the dissemination of false information—was not anchored in the performance of teaching duties and thus not limited to the collective agreement's remedies.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for unpaid invoices, arguing that a different corporate entity was responsible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had taken a different position at trial and that there was no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's finding of liability.

The appellant, an exclusive supplier of jump ropes to the respondent Foundation for 19 years, sued for reasonable notice of termination after the Foundation ended the relationship.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the Foundation had grounds to terminate without notice due to the appellant's difficult behaviour, an overbearing report, and refusal to reduce inflated prices.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, who were self-represented at trial, appealed the trial judgment on the grounds that the trial judge failed to grant an adjournment to retain counsel and failed to warn them that evidence from the counsel table was inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, noting the appellants never requested an adjournment and the trial judge repeatedly warned them about giving evidence from the witness box.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the payables for a group of bridal gowns and dismissed a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting oppression remedies to the respondents, arguing there was no factual basis for the finding of oppression.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of oppression, which included refusing to provide audited financial statements, calling shareholder meetings on short notice, and withholding monies for snowmobiles.

However, the court varied the judgment to remove the individual appellant's joint and several liability for the snowmobile payment, as no such relief was sought against him personally.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, including challenges to the 12% interest rate and the costs award.

The appellant private school appealed a trial judgment awarding $8,800 in damages to the respondents for the expulsion of their eight-year-old daughter without notice or a hearing.

The school argued the trial judge based the decision on a breach of an implied contractual term of natural justice, which was not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations of procedural unfairness were central to the dispute from the beginning and were sufficiently pleaded in the context of a breach of fiduciary duty, meaning the school knew the case it had to meet.

Following further written representations on costs and funds in court, the Court of Appeal amended its order in a commercial appeal.

The court directed that funds paid by the appellant on account of land transfer tax relating to a registered instrument be released from prior orders and paid to the appellant.

The remaining issues of costs and the balance of money in court were left to the assessment officer, with the remaining funds to stay in court pending a final order of assessment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge’s conclusion that a purported purchase and sale transaction was not genuine and therefore was not bona fide for the purposes of s. 70 of the Registry Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge found the transaction to be a sham and that there was ample evidence supporting that conclusion, including back-dated documents, lack of due diligence, and deficiencies in the evidence.

A cross-appeal concerning slander of title, punitive damages, and costs was also dismissed, although leave to appeal costs was granted.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, except that a non-participating respondent was awarded no costs.