Mitchell B. Rosenblatt

The plaintiff acted as an agent in Korea for the defendant.

After their relationship deteriorated, the parties signed a Payment Agreement acknowledging outstanding commissions owed to the plaintiff.

The defendant partially paid but then ceased payments.

The plaintiff sued for the remaining balance.

The court found the Payment Agreement to be a binding contract and awarded the plaintiff USD $232,330.44.

The defendant's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of damages.

The court limited pre-judgment interest to three years due to the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendants for unpaid invoices totaling over $347,000 for labour and materials supplied to renovate a commercial space into a licensed cannabis-growing facility.

The defendants argued the work was deficient, claiming charge-backs, and asserted the parties had agreed to a fixed quote of $350,000.

The court found the plaintiff met its onus to prove entitlement to the invoiced amounts and dismissed the defendants' claims, noting a complete lack of documentary evidence to support the alleged deficiencies or the existence of a fixed quote agreement.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the amount of $347,020.40 plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from blocking access to a laneway on lands owned by the plaintiff.

The defendants cross-moved for an injunction preventing the plaintiff from using the lands, claiming they had acquired title by adverse possession.

The court found the defendants failed to establish a strong prima facie case of adverse possession, as they could not show the true owner was excluded for the requisite 10-year period prior to the lands being converted to Land Titles.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering the defendants to remove gravel blocking the laneway, and dismissed the defendants' cross-motion.

The applicant brought a motion regarding an unpaid equalization payment and sought a preliminary order that the respondent was not entitled to further relief due to his ongoing breach of a 2008 child support order.

The respondent had accumulated approximately $300,000 in child support arrears, claiming his obligation ended due to estrangement from the children, though he never sought to vary the order.

Applying the three-stage test for Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the respondent's favour.

The court ordered that the respondent's motion be dismissed unless he pays the arrears accumulated up to the children's 18th birthdays and commences a Motion to Change within 60 days.