Moses Muyal

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,200.

A franchisee brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that it validly rescinded a franchise agreement under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The franchisee argued that the franchisor failed to provide proper statutory disclosure, including financial statements of the actual franchisor, lease documentation, and directors’ certificates, and failed to disclose several agreements relating to the franchise.

The court held that the deficiencies were substantial and material, rendering the disclosure so deficient that it amounted to no disclosure at all.

As a result, the franchisee retained a two‑year rescission right under the statute and had validly exercised that right.

The court granted declaratory relief and held the franchisee entitled to statutory recovery under s. 6(6).

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice, seeking to correct a formal judgment regarding a mortgage principal amount, challenge a costs order, and request a stay of enforcement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part solely to correct the principal amount in the formal order.

The remainder of the appeal was dismissed, as the costs order was appropriate and the stay request had been addressed in subsequent orders.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in favour of the plaintiff.

The motion judge had found it arguable that the plaintiff, a limited partner, had a reasonable claim to an interest in the property through a constructive trust.

The Divisional Court found that while there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave, as the motion judge had merely found the legal propositions to be arguable rather than making new law.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice C. Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 4, 2005.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in a one-sentence endorsement.

The appellant appealed the judgment of Justice C. Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 4, 2005.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a one-sentence endorsement.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals in a brief endorsement.

The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its action for a declaration that the termination of its commercial tenancy was invalid.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to determine the central issue of whether a termination clause had been consensually deleted from the lease.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred by relying on improperly admitted information regarding the corporate status of the landlord.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs up to the date of their settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court considered the proportionality of costs in small claims matters and the settlement offers made by both parties.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs but fixed costs at $4,000 all-inclusive in favour of the plaintiffs.

The appellant home inspection company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $9,148.58 for gross negligence in failing to discover a latent water leakage defect.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of gross negligence, noting the inspector observed poor exterior water management and reported normal moisture levels despite dry walls.

The court also refused to enforce the contract's limitation of liability clause, finding it was a contract of adhesion presented after much work was done, and the gross negligence constituted a fundamental breach that deprived the respondents of the entire benefit of the contract.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision finding a concluded settlement between the parties for $12,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of a settlement, noting that correspondence confirmed the agreement and the appellant's former counsel conceded the amount.

However, the Court varied the order to direct that the $12,000 settlement amount, plus accrued interest, be paid to the appellant out of money held in court.

The respondent's cross-appeal for costs of the motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded for the appeal.