Oleg Michael Roslak

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his defamation action against his first cousins.

The appellant alleged that the respondents made defamatory statements accusing him of sexual assault: one through an alleged text message sent in 2019 and another through an alleged repetition of that message in 2021.

The motion judge found no admissible evidence of the alleged text message and rejected the appellant's evidence regarding its repetition based on credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's credibility determinations and noting that the appellant had narrowed his claims at the motion stage, thereby distinguishing the issues from a separate related action.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for breach of a settlement agreement on the basis that it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiffs argued that a rolling limitation period applied because the agreement involved periodic payments.

The court held that a 'once and for all' limitation period applied because the defendants had categorically repudiated the agreement and declared it null and void more than two years before the action was commenced.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicants appealed an arbitration award that upheld the termination of their Canadian Tire dealer contract and applied to set aside the award on procedural fairness grounds.

The termination arose after the dealer processed a bulk sale of nearly $1 million in air fryers to a reseller and subsequently failed to reverse the transaction as requested, instead substituting other products.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator applied the correct legal test for wilful blindness and did not breach procedural fairness.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the arbitrator's decision.

The applicant, Jim’s Towing, sought judicial review of the Durham Regional Police Service’s decision to award a towing contract to another company, alleging corruption and bias in the process.

The court found that the decision was a commercial one, not a public law matter, and thus not subject to judicial review.

The application was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The moving party police services board brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of its decision to award a towing contract to a competitor of the responding party.

The responding party alleged the procurement process was tainted by corruption and bias involving a senior police officer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the decision to award the towing contract was a private, commercial decision rather than an exercise of statutory power with a sufficiently public character.

As such, the decision was not amenable to judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Manoravy Thillainathan, to amend his Notice of Application and file supplementary affidavits in a proceeding against the Hindu Temple Society of Canada (HTSC).

The HTSC opposed and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as moot.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the admissibility of new evidence.

The court finds that the challenge to the 2021 election is now moot, declines to allow amendments to add a monitor or challenge the 2023 election, and refuses to admit the new affidavits at this stage.

The application is discontinued as against the 26 named former directors and officers, and only the HTSC remains as respondent.

The Plaintiffs, Hassan Siddiqui and Sara Al-Ahmar, sought summary judgment against real estate agents and their agencies (Gyanesh Paliwal, Re-Max Realty Specialists Inc., Sanjay Bhayana, and World Class Realty Point) to recover commissions and a premium paid in an assignment of a pre-construction home purchase.

The underlying purchase agreement was not completed by the builder, who returned the deposit but not the premium or commissions.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled with the original assignor, Haarikka Sivanarayan.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding no contractual basis for recovery from the real estate agents as the Plaintiffs did not directly pay the commissions, and the assignor was responsible for them.

Furthermore, the court found no unjust enrichment as there was no direct deprivation of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the agents' enrichment.

The defendants moved for summary judgment in a defamation action brought by their uncle, who alleged they sent and repeated a text message calling him a rapist.

The court utilized its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04 to hear oral evidence on a discrete credibility issue regarding the alleged repetition of the text.

Finding no admissible evidence that the text message ever existed and preferring the defendant's evidence that he never repeated such a statement, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded $30,000 in costs.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce an alleged settlement agreement between themselves, the plaintiffs, and the third parties regarding the sale of a franchise business.

The court found that the communications between counsel, including an unsigned draft Minutes of Settlement, amounted only to a framework or an agreement to agree, particularly since the third parties had not committed to purchasing the assets.

The motion to enforce the settlement and for injunctive relief against the plaintiff was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder and director of Ecounion International Ltd., brought a motion seeking an injunction to prevent the sale of the company's gas station property and the appointment of a receiver (interim or investigative).

He alleged corporate oppression and misappropriation of funds by the majority shareholder and his son.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried for his oppression claim.

The court determined there was no basis to enjoin the mortgagee's enforcement rights, as the mortgage was valid, in default, and the plaintiff had personally benefited from the refinancing.

Furthermore, the court found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience did not favour appointing a receiver, deeming it an unnecessary expense given the plaintiff's access to financial records and the lack of strong evidence of misappropriation by the defendants.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding parties.

The court determined costs following a reference decision on priority of claims.

The applicant, Joe Guerrieri, was awarded reduced substantial indemnity costs ($40,000) in priority to all parties except the first mortgagee, Frances Gower.

Gower was awarded significantly reduced substantial indemnity costs ($20,000) with first priority.

Rob Rolston Building Materials Ltd. was awarded $5,000 in costs.

Jerry Schmanda and Dawna Catharine Fairbairn (the Schmandas), whose unsuccessful equitable mortgage claim caused the reference, were made liable for any unrecoverable costs awarded to Guerrieri, Gower, and Rolston.

The court considered Rule 57 factors, proportionality, and settlement offers, noting that while offers were made, none were accepted in a way that avoided the reference hearing costs.

A joint venture partner sought disclosure of detailed payroll and employment records of the other partner’s employees working on a diamond mine project in order to audit joint venture expenditures.

The respondent refused, arguing disclosure would contravene the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) without employee consent.

The court held that while the applicant had a contractual right to audit and the information sought constituted personal information under PIPEDA, disclosure without employee consent would violate the statute absent a statutory exception.

Section 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA does not create a free‑standing jurisdiction for courts to order disclosure; rather, it applies only after an independent court order requiring production exists.

Because no such jurisdictional basis had been invoked, the application was dismissed without prejudice to renewal.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning a commercial tenancy dispute and a counterclaim for damages arising from the landlord’s termination of the tenancy and demolition of the building, the successful tenant sought costs exceeding $185,000.

The landlord argued it should instead receive costs or that no costs be awarded, citing the tenant’s failure to pay rent as ordered, allegations of perjury, and late disclosure of evidence.

The court held that the general principle that costs follow the event applied, as none of the landlord’s objections justified departing from that rule.

However, the court found the tenant’s litigation tactics—particularly its refusal to pay rent despite opportunities to resolve the dispute and regain the premises—warranted a reduction in the costs claimed.

Costs were therefore reduced by approximately one‑third.

A commercial landlord‑tenant dispute arose after the landlord halted renovations at nightclub premises and later began demolition while litigation over an alleged lease breach was pending.

Earlier proceedings determined the tenant had not breached the lease and that the landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment.

At this damages trial, the court considered whether the landlord was liable for losses during a seven‑month delay period and whether demolition prior to termination established liability for the remainder of the lease term.

The court found the landlord wrongfully expelled the tenant and commenced demolition before termination, thereby destroying the leased premises.

Damages were awarded for the seven‑month period and for the balance of the lease term, but the court declined to award damages for equipment loss due to insufficient proof and the tenant’s failure to mitigate.

The appellants, facing Canadian charges for a telemarketing fraud scheme targeting US residents, were ordered committed for extradition to the United States.

They appealed the committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order, arguing the Canadian proceedings were a sham to hold them on bail pending extradition (abuse of process) and that their surrender violated their s. 6(1) Charter mobility rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and applications, finding no air of reality to the abuse of process claim and holding that the Minister properly applied the Cotroni factors in deciding to surrender the appellants.