Ocean Y. Enbar

The parties jointly purchased a residential property as tenants in common.

After their relationship ended, the application judge granted an equitable vesting order transferring the appellant's one percent interest to the respondent and ordered compensation.

The appellant appealed the vesting order and compensation.

The respondent registered the vesting order on title before the appeal was heard.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal of the vesting order was moot due to the registration on title and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The court also dismissed the appeal regarding compensation and denied leave to appeal costs.

Following a trial where the defendant lawyer was ordered to return the plaintiffs' $35,000 deposit, the court determined the quantum of expenses and costs.

The court found the defendant engaged in unreasonable behaviour by misleading the court, failing to produce crucial documents, and hiding the improper release of the deposit.

The plaintiffs were awarded $5,795.50 for legal expenses incurred to recover the deposit, plus $7,500 in costs (including a penalty for unreasonable behaviour) and $416 in disbursements.

The plaintiffs paid a $35,000 deposit into the trust account of the defendant lawyer, who was acting for the vendors in a proposed asset purchase agreement.

The lawyer released the funds to his clients and kept $3,000 for himself before the agreement was even signed, and hid this fact for three years.

The court allowed the self-represented plaintiffs to amend their claim mid-trial due to the lawyer's late disclosure of documents.

The court found the lawyer was willfully blind to his clients' fraudulent scheme and breached his trust obligations to the non-client plaintiffs.

The lawyer was ordered to repay the $35,000 deposit plus up to $15,000 in legal expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.

The moving party, who suffered a permanent brain injury from an assault, brought a motion to terminate his guardianship of property and for a declaration that he is capable of managing his own property.

The motion was opposed by his mother, who raised concerns about his impulsivity and vulnerability to financial scams.

The court reviewed capacity assessments and cognitive reports submitted by the moving party but found them deficient for failing to address his medical history and the concerns raised by collateral sources.

The court concluded that the moving party currently lacks the ability to appreciate the consequences of his financial decisions.

The guardianship was ordered to continue, but the moving party was provided with $15,000 to manage for six months as a trial period, after which he may return to court with further evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's grant of an interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $44,086.96, relying on an Offer to Settle served on August 19, 2025, which proposed settlement on essentially the same basis as the relief granted.

The plaintiff alternatively sought partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed costs at $33,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that while the defendants' conduct did not justify costs throughout on a substantial indemnity scale, it was objectionable and they ought to have accepted the offer.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's tenancy at commercial premises.

The plaintiff had entered into a binding lease in 2021 with the former landlord for approximately 54,800 square feet.

Due to a holdover tenant, the plaintiff only occupied approximately 27,000 square feet beginning in April 2024 on a month-to-month basis.

When the defendants purchased the property in April 2025, they initially accepted the arrangement but subsequently demanded full payment under the original lease and issued a notice of termination for alleged rental default.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding that all three prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test were satisfied.

The defendants' zoning by-law concerns were addressed but did not outweigh the balance of inconvenience favoring the plaintiff.

The defendants, Rosemary Palmieri, De Zen Realty Company Ltd., Sam Jonathan Lee, and Master’s Roofing and Supplies Inc., brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss an action for damages caused by a fire in a commercial storage unit leased by the plaintiff.

The action alleged negligence and breach of contract.

The court found that the commercial lease's insurance clauses, specifically Articles 10.01 and 10.02, operated as an assumption of risk by the tenant (plaintiff) and included a waiver of subrogation against the landlord and its agents.

The court also found that an exclusion clause (Article 6.12) in the lease was valid and applicable.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding the landlord's duty to render premises insurable, waiver by the landlord, and unconscionability were rejected due to lack of pleading, evidentiary support, or legal merit.

The court concluded that the matter was appropriate for summary judgment.