Monica Unger Peters

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction over a claim by Grand HVAC Leasing Ltd. against four Alberta-based defendants who guaranteed the obligations of Boaz Pharmaceuticals Inc. under equipment leases.

The court found that the guarantees were not made in Ontario, and that there was no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the dispute.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would have stayed the action in favour of Alberta as the more appropriate forum.

The claim was stayed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from a summary judgment ordering the appellants, 2562583 Ontario Inc. o/a Meltwich Food Co. and Janarthanan Jeyaparan, to indemnify the franchisor, Meltwich Hospitality Group Inc., for amounts paid to the landlord, Ritson Division Retail GP Limited, following the franchisee’s breach of a commercial lease.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings that the franchisee’s breach triggered indemnity obligations under the franchise and assignment agreements, and that the settlement between the franchisor and landlord was reasonable.

The appellants’ arguments regarding the scope of indemnity, timing of liability, and procedural fairness were rejected.

The court voided six promissory notes and struck out related mortgages registered by the plaintiffs against the defendants' properties, finding that the notes were materially altered without consent, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court also declined to grant equitable mortgages or certificates of pending litigation, citing the plaintiffs' inequitable conduct and failure to meet statutory tests.

The decision addresses issues of forged notes, after-acquired property, corporate personality, and the application of the Family Law Act to matrimonial homes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondents $605,000 in damages for the anticipatory breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in accepting the respondents' expert appraisal of the property's value and in not sending the matter to trial due to competing expert opinions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's preference for the respondents' expert, who followed accepted methodologies, nor in the determination that the respondents reasonably mitigated their damages by purchasing a comparable property on the assessment date.

The Franchisor, Meltwich Hospitality Group Inc., sought summary judgment on its crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against the Franchisee, 2562583 Ontario Inc., o/a Meltwich Food Co., and its principal, Janarthanan Jeyaparan.

The crossclaim arose after the Franchisor settled with the Landlord, Ritson Division Retail GP Limited, following the Franchisee's default on a lease and subsequent abandonment of the premises.

The Franchisor claimed the settlement amount and legal fees incurred in defending the Landlord's action, relying on indemnification clauses in the Franchise Agreement and Mr. Jeyaparan's personal guarantee.

The Franchisee and Mr. Jeyaparan raised unsubstantiated defenses of "subterfuge" and misrepresentation by the Franchisor, and claimed they did not receive a full copy of the lease.

The court found no merit to these defenses, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, holding the Franchisee and Mr. Jeyaparan jointly and severally liable for the claimed damages and costs.

The plaintiffs (Buyers) moved for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of a residential property against the defendants (Sellers).

The Sellers repudiated the agreement, claiming undue influence by their real estate agents (Third Parties).

The court found that the Sellers repudiated the agreement and the Buyers accepted it.

The court dismissed the Sellers' claim of undue influence or breach of confidential information as a basis to set aside the agreement, noting no knowledge by the Buyers.

The court determined the appropriate measure of damages was the difference between the purchase price and the market value on the assessment date, which was April 25, 2022, the date the Buyers could reasonably mitigate.

The court awarded the Buyers $525,000 in damages, plus increased borrowing costs and land transfer tax, but denied damages related to the sale of an investment property.

The third-party claim was bifurcated to be tried separately.

The plaintiff, 1000249084 Ontario Inc., sought summary judgment for a mortgage debt and sale of a property.

The defendant, Payam Andazesgishahr, argued collusion between the plaintiff (owned by the son of his former business partner) and his former partner, and that the plaintiff acted in bad faith.

The defendant also argued the proceeding was deficient because his wife, Ima Tavakkoli, a co-resident in the matrimonial home, was not served.

The court found no genuine issue of collusion or bad faith, noting the plaintiff's actions were reasonable business decisions.

The court also dismissed the argument regarding the wife's non-service, finding she had actual knowledge of the proceedings and that the argument was a delay tactic.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiff for the mortgage amount and an order for possession, directing the title of the proceeding to be amended to add the wife as a defendant and staying the judgment for 30 days to allow her to seek relief.

This endorsement addresses a costs award following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' (Sanjiv Joshi and Xpert Law Inc.) motion for an interlocutory order to reinstate Joshi as an officer and remove David Grace as a director of Olympia Athletic Camps Limited and 563973 Ontario Limited.

David Grace, the successful responding party, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded Grace $103,456 in substantial indemnity costs, finding that Joshi's conduct, both in the circumstances giving rise to the litigation and in the conduct of the litigation itself, was reprehensible and justified an elevated costs award.

The court rejected Joshi's arguments for no costs or costs in the cause, and his challenges to the hours and rates claimed by Grace's counsel, while making some adjustments for former counsel's time and a previous $10,000 costs order against Grace.

The appellant, a third-party creditor (2401242 Ontario Inc.), appealed an order releasing the wife's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The appellant had obtained a default judgment and filed a writ against the husband, arguing priority over the wife's interest in the jointly held matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a creditor cannot seize the interest of a non-debtor joint tenant.

The court clarified that under Ontario's Execution Act, a writ only binds the debtor's exigible interest in jointly held land, not the entire property, and therefore the wife was entitled to her half-share of the proceeds.

This endorsement addresses an urgent motion brought by the Grace Parties (defendants in the main oppression action) seeking to remove Sanjiv Joshi as a Director and Officer of Parent Co., alleging oppressive conduct and corporate deadlock.

The court found the motion urgent, permitted it to proceed, and set a schedule for the filing of affidavits and cross-examinations.

The judge also requested the Regional Senior Justice to appoint a Case Management Judge due to the complexity and multiple related proceedings involved in the overall litigation.

The applicants, Sanjiv Joshi and Xpert Law Inc., brought an interlocutory motion seeking an oppression remedy and reinstatement into the management of Olympia Athletic Camps Limited and 563973 Ontario Limited, and ultimately the removal of David Grace as Director.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions, requiring a strong prima facie case for mandatory relief.

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case of oppression, noting the absence of formal agreements defining Joshi's management role and the fact that Olympia's articles only allowed for one director.

Furthermore, the court found that Joshi did not come to court with "clean hands" due to concerning conduct, including misrepresentations, conflicts of interest, and questionable financial dealings.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the applicants and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent, Grace, given his long-standing involvement and the negative impact of Joshi's conduct on staff.

The motion was dismissed, and all previous interim terms were vacated.

The plaintiffs, Sanjive Joshi and Xpert Law Inc., brought motions for interim and interlocutory relief against David Grace and the companies 563973 Ontario Limited and Olympia Athletic Camps Limited, alleging oppression and seeking access to books and records.

Grace sought to file a late affidavit in response, which the plaintiffs opposed due to non-compliance with a court-ordered timetable and Rule 39.02(3).

The court, considering the interests of justice, permitted Grace to file his affidavit despite the procedural breaches, imposing terms including an adjournment, further cross-examinations, and an award of $10,000 in costs thrown away to the plaintiffs.

Interim financial controls were also ordered.

Marijana Mudronja brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act to vary or set aside a prior order by Justice Shaw that set the valuation date for her shares in Mareddy Corporation to 2017.

She argued that Eddy Mudronja, the majority shareholder, failed to disclose relevant information and destroyed corporate records, and that the property's value significantly increased post-2017.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no new evidence, no fraud, and that the alleged undisclosed information was either requested after the initial hearing, already disclosed, or irrelevant.

The court emphasized the finality of orders and rejected the notion of continuing jurisdiction to re-litigate valuation dates based on market fluctuations or previously known facts.

The applicant tenant brought an application for declaratory relief to interpret the term 'Rentable Area of the Premises' in a commercial lease.

The tenant argued the area was 2,035 square feet, restricted to its specific unit, while the respondent landlord argued it was 2,314 square feet, which included the tenant's share of common areas.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the court read the lease as a whole and found that the landlord had the express right to measure the area and include the tenant's share of common areas.

The court determined the rentable area to be 2,314 square feet and dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding waiver and unconscionability.

The moving parties, Amarjot Lamba and Chand Lamba, sought an order from the Court of Appeal for Ontario to extend the time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had upheld a motion judge's decision to grant summary judgment, forfeiting the moving parties' $20,000 deposit in a failed real estate transaction due to their breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The original dispute involved claims of misrepresentation regarding property square footage and building permit compliance.

The Court of Appeal denied the extension, finding no arguable question of law or public importance, and noting the moving parties' failure to form an intention to appeal within the relevant period and their non-compliance with prior cost orders.

The moving defendants (sellers) sought summary judgment and forfeiture of a $20,000 deposit after the responding plaintiffs (buyers) failed to close a real estate transaction.

The buyers claimed they were entitled to rescind the agreement due to an incorrect square footage in the MLS listing and concerns over an open building permit.

The court found that the buyers had viewed the property and were aware of its size, meaning the MLS error was not a material misrepresentation.

Furthermore, the buyers failed to raise a valid objection to title regarding the building permit.

The court granted summary judgment to the sellers, finding the buyers defaulted on the transaction, and ordered the deposit forfeited as relief from forfeiture was not warranted.

The court issued additional reasons for judgment to quantify the amounts owed by the Applicant, McRae Cold Storage Inc., to the Respondent, Nova Cold Logistics ULC, under a commercial lease, following a previous judgment.

The undisputed amounts for energy surcharges, interest, and costs totaled $168,104.10, which were ordered to be released from trust.

The entitlement to holdover rent, totaling $212,199.09, remained contingent on the outcome of McRae's appeal of the original judgment.

The applicant, McRae Cold Storage Inc., sought a declaration that it was not in default of its lease agreement with the respondent, Nova Cold Logistics ULC, and that it had properly exercised its option to renew the lease.

The dispute arose from McRae's refusal to pay increased energy costs passed through by Nova, based on differing interpretations of an "Energy Provision" in the lease.

The court interpreted the Energy Provision, found McRae in default for non-payment, and consequently ruled that McRae was not entitled to exercise its renewal option.

Relief from forfeiture was also denied due to McRae's lack of diligence in remedying the default.

The court ordered McRae to pay holdover rent and costs.

A status review application brought by the Children's Aid Society concerning an 11-year-old child placed in the care of the maternal aunt under an order dated January 20, 2016.

The Society failed to comply with statutory and procedural requirements for service of the status review application.

The application was issued before the order's expiry but served significantly late, and the maternal aunt was not served prior to the first return date despite being entitled to service.

The court dismissed the application for non-compliance with Section 64(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act and Rule 33(6.1) of the Family Law Rules, finding that jurisdiction for status review had been lost.