Nicolas Carlos Canizares

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim of a corporate plaintiff, Lake View Town Development Inc., alleging incorrect identification and lack of proper authorization.

The plaintiffs argued the motion was abandoned due to the defendants' failure to properly confirm it under Rule 37.10.1.

The court found that the defendants' counsel failed to confer with opposing counsel, falsely represented in Form 37B that they had, and failed to amend their motion materials as previously directed.

Consequently, the motion was deemed abandoned, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.

This decision addresses a reference ordered by Kimmel, J. to resolve disputes between a Landlord (2356802 Ontario Corp.) and a Tenant (285 Spadina SPV Inc.) regarding the Tenant's use of a $3,164,000 construction allowance.

The Landlord sought reimbursement for funds allegedly misspent on non-Landlord's Work.

The Tenant, through Ronald Hitti (also a respondent), argued against the need for accounting and, alternatively, that all funds were properly used.

The court found that the Tenant failed to adequately account for a significant portion of the allowance, ordering 285 Spadina SPV Inc. to reimburse $1,501,139.64 and Ronald Hitti personally to reimburse $3,500.

The applicants brought a motion to declare Ronald Hitti a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and, alternatively, to prohibit him from making further motions without leave under Rule 37.16.

The court reviewed Hitti's persistent and acrimonious conduct, including repeated unsuccessful motions, failure to pay multiple costs awards, and abusive correspondence.

The court found that Hitti's conduct met the criteria for vexatious litigation, granted the relief sought, declared him a vexatious litigant, and prohibited him from bringing further motions without leave.

Costs were awarded against Hitti.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add third parties (an engineering firm and an engineer) as defendants to the main action, alleging negligence in renovation work.

The third parties resisted, arguing the proposed claim was statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient information to discover the claim against the third parties much earlier than asserted, specifically by August 10, 2016, when the municipality served its third-party claim detailing the alleged negligence.

The plaintiff's motion to add the third parties was dismissed as being outside the two-year limitation period, emphasizing that due diligence requires acting on available information rather than waiting for certainty from discoveries.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of a Florida residential property, claiming the respondent held her joint interest in trust for him due to unjust enrichment.

The court found both parties lacked credibility, but based on consistent evidence, determined the property was purchased jointly from joint funds with equal contributions.

The applicant failed to prove a resulting trust or unjust enrichment.

The court also noted potential jurisdictional issues regarding foreign realty and dismissed the applicant's claim.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' conduct and deceit.

The plaintiff landlord sued the tenant and guarantor for unpaid rent after the defendants vacated leased commercial premises before the lease term expired.

The defendants alleged they were induced to enter the lease by negligent misrepresentations regarding the presence of physicians in the building and the expected volume of patient referrals.

Applying the principles for negligent misrepresentation from Queen v. Cognos, the court held that no actionable misrepresentation was established and that the alleged statements were either unproven, not relied upon, or constituted expectations rather than guarantees.

The court also noted that the written lease contained an entire agreement clause negating extraneous representations.

The defendants voluntarily assumed the business risk and the landlord had taken reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the outstanding rent and interest.