No one appearing for the respondents

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Sandra Di Nardo to stay the enforcement of a judgment and related contempt orders pending her appeal in a contentious estate matter.

The court clarified the scope of its jurisdiction to grant a stay, distinguishing between orders that are and are not under appeal, and ultimately granted a temporary stay of the contempt order and warrant of committal pending a motion in the Superior Court.

The court found that the criteria for a stay were met, as the appeal could be rendered moot without interim relief.

The applicant, David Rossetti, sought a vesting order for property in Elizabethtown, Ontario, to be held by himself and Anthony Joseph Rossetti as tenants in common, each with a 50% interest.

The court addressed procedural issues regarding service and representation of several respondent estates and the inability to locate the trustee in bankruptcy for one co-owner.

The court granted the requested vesting order, finding the procedural requirements satisfied and the equities favouring the applicant, and ordered the land registry to be amended accordingly.

The applicant, William Malamas, sought leave to commence an application for judicial review of decisions by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Malamas had not satisfied the requirements under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act for leave to proceed as a vexatious litigant.

The court held that the proposed proceeding was an abuse of process and lacked reasonable grounds, as it was intrinsically linked to prior litigation that led to the vexatious litigant order.

The applicant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 304, brought an unopposed application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, seeking to enforce the Act and its Declaration against the respondents, owners and occupant of a condominium unit.

The application arose from the respondents’ repeated refusal to allow access to their unit to investigate and repair a water leak affecting the unit below, as well as ongoing harassing and disruptive conduct by the occupant, Rick Goncza.

The court found the evidence uncontradicted, held that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and Declaration, and granted the orders sought, including access for repairs and a cease and desist order against Rick Goncza.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, jointly and severally against all respondents.

The appellant purchased a painting purportedly by renowned Anishinaabe artist Norval Morrisseau for $20,000, accompanied by a provenance statement.

After the Art Gallery of Ontario indicated the painting was likely a fake, the appellant sued for return of the purchase price, lost investment returns, and punitive damages.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the authenticity of the painting remained uncertain.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by rejecting expert evidence based on his own personal research not in evidence, and by misapprehending the contract's terms regarding the provenance statement.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and the Sale of Goods Act, plus punitive damages.

The applicant applied under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to set aside an arbitral award.

The arbitrator had held that the parties' unanimous shareholder agreement was invalid and awarded the applicant $10,000 on a quantum meruit basis.

The applicant argued the arbitrator decided a matter beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The court agreed, finding the validity of the agreement was not submitted to arbitration.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to substitute its own damages award under section 46.

The court granted the applicant 90 days to elect whether to enforce the award or have it set aside.