Pamela Denise Fruitman

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision regarding a developer's site plan application.

The Tribunal had found the application complete despite the developer failing to attend a mandatory pre-application consultation.

The court granted the extension, finding the moving party's delay was short and adequately explained by its initial attempt to seek leave to appeal, and that the proposed application raised apparent grounds for relief that should be determined by a panel.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it validly exercised its option to purchase two commercial properties from the respondent landlord.

The landlord argued the tenant had exercised the option earlier via an email and subsequently forfeited it by failing to close.

The court found the tenant clearly and unequivocally exercised the option on January 21, 2023, in strict conformity with the lease terms, and was entitled to purchase the properties.

The court also noted it would have granted relief from forfeiture if necessary.

Costs of $35,000 were awarded to the tenant.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance or damages following the failed purchase of shares in a Volkswagen auto dealership and its land.

The parties had signed a non-binding Letter of Intent and later negotiated a revised offer via text and telephone, culminating in a Term Sheet.

Before formal Share Purchase Agreements were signed, the defendants accepted a higher offer from a third party.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding agreement on the essential terms of the revised offer.

However, the court declined to order specific performance due to the requirement for third-party consent from Volkswagen Canada, instead awarding the plaintiff $5,000,000 in damages for lost opportunity and the return of his $1,000,000 deposit.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim as an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, two cancer researchers, had previously been investigated by the hospital for research misconduct, resulting in the closure of their lab.

They challenged these decisions through multiple administrative appeals and judicial reviews.

The court found that the civil claim, which alleged bad faith, conspiracy, and breach of contract, raised the same factual and substantive issues that were or could have been litigated in the administrative proceedings.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine a representative of the Royal Bank of Canada, a non-party, for discovery.

The action involved allegations that the defendant lender made representations regarding financing arrangements for hotel development projects, including construction financing to be provided by the bank.

The court held that the plaintiffs established that the bank likely possessed information relevant to material issues in the action, particularly regarding the financing proposal process and representations made by the defendant.

The court further found that the plaintiffs could not obtain the information from the defendants and that fairness required allowing the examination prior to trial.

Leave was granted to conduct a limited four-hour examination of the bank’s representative.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The respondent had alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fuel-saving device but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by relying on unsupported pleadings and misapprehending when the limitation period commenced.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the counterclaim.