Nancy Jane Tourgis

The moving parties sought an extension of time to perfect their appeals from orders compelling the sale of a condominium and imposing a non-harassment order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding the delay unsatisfactorily explained, the appeal lacking merit, and ongoing prejudice to the responding parties.

The court awarded costs to the responding parties.

This endorsement addresses a motion in a certified class action regarding the scope of discovery.

The defendant, Western Union, sought to compel the representative plaintiff to answer two refused questions: (a) to produce facts and evidence from class members in the possession of class counsel, and (b) to advise whether plaintiffs’ counsel had spoken to any collectors or brokers.

The court found both questions improper, as they would effectively grant the defendant discovery of all class members and class counsel, contrary to the principles of class proceedings and privilege.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

This endorsement addresses two consolidated applications concerning a condominium unit owner's persistent anti-social and harassing behaviour.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 sought an order compelling the unit owner to sell her unit due to her breach of a prior injunction.

Separately, other unit owners sought a permanent injunction to restrain the unit owner and her family from further harassing conduct.

The court found the unit owner in breach of the previous order, noting that complaints to regulatory bodies (LSO and HRTO) made by her and her family were not bona fide and constituted harassment.

The court granted the order compelling the sale of the unit, deeming it the only available remedy given the owner's continued unacceptable conduct.

A permanent injunction was also granted against the unit owner and her parents, prohibiting contact and further proceedings without leave of the court.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful applicants.

The plaintiff, Tri-South Developments Inc., sued the defendant, 583167 Ontario Inc., for breach of contract, waiver/estoppel, and unjust enrichment related to a failed condominium development project.

The core dispute revolved around a "Severance Condition" in their Contribution Agreement (CA), which required Tri-South to obtain land severance by a specific date.

Tri-South failed to meet this condition, leading to the automatic termination of the CA.

Tri-South alleged the defendant breached its duty of good faith by not disclosing its intent to rely on the severance date and by misleading them regarding design approvals.

The court dismissed all of Tri-South's claims, finding no breach of good faith, no waiver or estoppel by the defendant, and no unjust enrichment, as the plaintiff had control over the condition and failed to meet its obligations.

The plaintiffs, vulnerable seniors, alleged predatory lending practices, misrepresentations, and inadequate legal representation led to a large, unconscionable mortgage on their debt-free home.

Several defendants, including Canada Choice Investments Inc. (CCI), Anas Ayyoub, Blossom Rabinowitz, and Edmond Ohayon, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them, arguing no reasonable cause of action was disclosed or that claims were scandalous/irrelevant.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were adequately pleaded, met the high threshold for surviving a motion to strike, and that the interests of justice strongly supported allowing the action to proceed to trial.

This motion concerned the removal of RSM Canada Limited as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Peter Trezzi and as the court-appointed Manager of two corporations.

The moving party, Albert Trezzi, also sought the appointment of himself and his two sisters as Estate Trustees.

RSM did not oppose its discharge but sought a holdback for professional fees related to a pending passing of accounts.

The court granted the removal of RSM and the appointment of the new Estate Trustees, and ordered a holdback of $250,000 for RSM's fees, finding it equitable and consistent with public policy, despite the beneficiaries' objections to the quantum.

This is a consolidated appeal from anti-SLAPP motions dismissing defamation actions.

The actions arose from tweets and an email suggesting the appellant's medical clinic discriminated against the LGBTQ community.

The motion judge dismissed both actions, finding the communications were fair comment.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred regarding Evans-Bitten's fair comment defence, concluding there were grounds to believe malice would defeat it.

After conducting the public interest weighing, the Court found the public interest in allowing the appellant's action against Evans-Bitten to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting her expression, given the substantial harm and low public interest in protecting gratuitous personal attacks.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the action against Kirkconnell and Smith, finding no grounds to believe their fair comment defence would fail due to recklessness.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following a successful application by Costco Wholesale Corporation to enforce arbitral awards and a U.S. judgment on costs against TicketOps Corporation.

Costco sought $65,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while TicketOps proposed $50,000 plus HST.

The court, considering factors under Rule 57.01, found that while the time spent by Costco's counsel was not disputed, the hourly rates of some junior lawyers were higher than reasonably expected.

The court awarded Costco $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis, deeming it a fair and reasonable amount within the parties' reasonable expectations.

The appellant, Skyline Real Estate Acquisitions (III) Inc., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its application for the return of a $3.25 million deposit.

Skyline had refused to close on an agreement to purchase two shopping plazas, alleging the vendor (Peterborough Retail Portfolio LP) failed to satisfy conditions related to key tenant tenancies (Walmart and Dollarama).

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the vendor had made commercially reasonable efforts and provided substantial assurances, while the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith by insisting on strict technical compliance to exit a contract it no longer desired.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The defendants, Costco entities, brought a motion to stay an action initiated by TicketOps Corporation, alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion of intellectual property.

The motion was based on arbitration clauses in agreements between the parties.

The plaintiff argued that the claims primarily related to platforms not covered by the arbitration clauses.

Applying the Haas v. Gunasekaram framework, the court found that the defendants had arguably demonstrated that the arbitration agreements applied to all platforms in dispute.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the arbitration provisions were clearly inoperative or unconscionable.

Consequently, the court stayed the action in favour of arbitration, acknowledging the potential for fragmented adjudication due to multiple arbitral forums.

The appellant, ALYU Inc., appealed a lower court decision regarding the interpretation of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for commercial units.

ALYU argued that the estimated measurements in the APS should not include a proportional amount of common elements.

The application judge had interpreted the APS to include common elements, dismissing ALYU's application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contractual interpretation.

The court affirmed that the BOMA 1996 Standard, referenced in the APS, requires the unit area to be "grossed-up" to account for common areas, and that the interpretation aligned with the parties' mutual objective intentions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The landlord, Camcentre Holdings Inc., appealed a lower court decision that found its Notice of Termination of a commercial lease ineffective.

The termination was based on a demolition clause requiring "all requisite permits and authorizations for the commencement of such redevelopment, reconstruction or demolition" by the end of the notice period.

The landlord argued that asbestos abatement, which did not require a permit, constituted the commencement of demolition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Notice of Termination was ineffective because the landlord had not obtained a demolition permit by the specified date, and asbestos abatement was not considered the "commencement of demolition" for the purpose of the lease clause.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses a request to coordinate two appeals arising from a single lower court decision that dismissed defamation actions under anti-SLAPP legislation.

The appellants sought separate hearings, while the respondents requested the appeals be heard together.

The appeal management judge ordered the appeals to be heard concurrently, emphasizing judicial economy and efficiency, and finding no principled reason to hear them separately despite the appellants' arguments regarding factual and legal dissimilarities between the two cases.

The appellants sought to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to remove a litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction as the order was interlocutory, not final, and quashed the appeal.

The panel then reconstituted as the Divisional Court and denied leave to appeal, finding no confusion in the relevant rule (r. 7.06(2)) and no general importance warranting leave.

The appellants, Amber Baptiste and Every Girl Counts LLC, appealed two Superior Court orders: one recognizing a California judgment against them in favour of the respondent, Michael Goguen, and another allowing enforcement of that judgment by seizing funds in Alberta.

The appellants argued the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over funds outside the province.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Ontario court's in personam jurisdiction over the appellants and CIBC (whose head office is in Ontario), finding it irrelevant that funds were transferred to Alberta.

The court applied principles from *Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje*, emphasizing that requiring assets to be present in the jurisdiction at the time of enforcement is not conducive to fairness in a globalized world.

Talon International Inc. brought a motion to remove Mitchell Wine and MSTW Professional Corporation as lawyers of record for the defendant Byung Sook Min, alleging a conflict of interest.

The conflict arose from Mr. Wine's prior representation of 22 other unit purchasers in 19 actions against Talon, which had settled with confidentiality provisions.

Talon argued Mr. Wine possessed confidential settlement information relevant to the current action.

Applying the MacDonald Estate and Celanese Canada Inc. tests, the court found Mr. Wine's new retainer was sufficiently related to his previous representation, creating a rebuttable presumption of confidential information possession that was not rebutted.

The court concluded there was a real risk of prejudice to Talon that could not be overcome by remedies short of disqualification, balancing the integrity of the justice system against the litigant's choice of counsel.

The motion was granted, and Mr. Wine and his firm were removed as counsel.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and interim injunctive relief to compel the defendants to sign a severance application and to enjoin them from interfering with a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) proceeding.

The defendant Sedona Place Co-Ownership Inc. sought an order directing the proceeding to arbitration.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue involving an interest in land and that damages were not an adequate remedy.

The court also granted the mandatory injunction compelling the severance consent, noting the defendants' breach of the option agreement and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' development.

A prohibitory injunction preventing interference with the LPAT hearing was also granted based on the defendants' past conduct and potential irreparable harm.

The action was stayed to allow the parties to proceed to arbitration on agreed terms, with residual court jurisdiction.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Representative Plaintiffs sought substantial or partial indemnity costs following a successful conditional certification motion in a class action.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $35,000 for the certification motion and $1,000 for costs submissions.

The court rejected substantial indemnity, finding the defendant's conduct in resisting certification was not egregious and did not warrant a punitive award.

It also found the plaintiff's Offer to Settle ill-advised and an "ill fit" for a certification motion, which is a mandatory procedural step that does not decide the merits of the case.

This case involves three appeals arising from matrimonial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal addressed the validity of a stay of execution obtained by a third-party creditor (the husband's father) against the matrimonial home, the striking of the husband's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders, and the interpretation of a domestic contract concerning the wife's interest in the matrimonial home and equalization payments.

The court found that the stay of execution was justified under the Courts of Justice Act, despite not meeting the Family Law Act criteria, as the creditor's objective was to defeat the wife's claims.

The decision to strike the husband's pleadings was upheld due to his wilful non-compliance and history of defaults.

The trial judge's interpretation of the domestic contract, granting the wife a one-half interest in the matrimonial home, and the valuation of the husband's debt to his father at zero for equalization purposes were affirmed.

However, the costs award from the lower court was varied to credit the husband for interim payments already made.

An insurer appealed a decision finding that an insured's adult daughter was covered under a homeowner's insurance policy after she was injured falling from a porch.

The daughter had lived with her mother for over 60 years, paid rent, and performed household chores.

The policy excluded coverage for persons residing in the household except residence employees.

The application judge found the daughter was not a residence employee but was covered as a tenant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that once a person is established as a member of the household, they cannot be covered as a tenant under the exclusion clause, regardless of whether they pay rent.