Pathik Bipinchandra Baxi

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Building Official revoking a building permit for the construction of a two-family dwelling.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding it was barred by res judicata as the revocation order had been previously upheld.

On the merits, the court held that while the property had legal non-conforming use status, the appellant's proposed construction constituted an extraordinary intensification of use that required a zoning variation from the Committee of Adjustments, which falls outside the authority of the Chief Building Official.

This Simplified Rules action involved a dispute between a creditor and debtors.

The plaintiffs moved to restore their action to the trial list after it was struck for delay in 2012.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court applied the Carioca’s test for restoring an action, which requires a reasonable explanation for delay and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the relevant delay period began in June 2014, when the defendants withdrew a previous motion to dismiss for delay.

The plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for the subsequent 14-month delay, primarily due to attempts to mediate.

The court also found the defendants failed to prove actual prejudice, rejecting bald assertions of fading memories and noting the defendants' own failure to prepare their case by taking witness statements.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion to restore the action was granted, and the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs the right to amend their statement of claim to add parties.

The defendants argued that the amendment should have been prohibited due to an expired limitation period and a failure to plead discoverability.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision on a matter of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the disputed discoverability evidence.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distributions, and fraud, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans against all respondents, finding their conduct egregious and harmful to investors who lost over $1.6 million.

Administrative penalties of $500,000 and $300,000 were imposed on the individual respondents, along with orders to disgorge the amounts obtained from the fraud.

The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the investigation and hearing.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondents based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued that a $5,000 cash payment from the respondents extended the limitation period, a claim the respondents denied.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge properly refused an adjournment, he failed to resolve the material contradictions in the evidence regarding the alleged payment.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

A proposed purchaser under an agreement of purchase and sale sought leave to intervene in a mortgage enforcement proceeding where the defendants had brought a motion to stay a power of sale and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court considered Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing intervention by added parties.

The proposed intervenor demonstrated a real interest in the litigation because the outcome could affect his contractual right to complete the purchase of the property and his submissions would assist the court in assessing issues including fair market value.

The court found that at least one of the disjunctive criteria under Rule 13.01(1) was met and that intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

Leave to intervene as an added party on the defendants’ motion was granted.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their main action and striking their defence to a counterclaim for delay and failure to comply with undertakings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision based on the record before him.

However, the appellants brought a motion to file fresh evidence consisting of the previously unproduced financial documents.

Although the fresh evidence did not meet the due diligence requirement, the Court admitted it because it was highly relevant to the ongoing defamation counterclaim.

The appeal was allowed, the pleadings were restored, and the action was returned to the trial list, with costs awarded to the respondent due to the appellants' delay.

The appellant brought a motion to reopen a final judgment based on fresh evidence, specifically a document ('exhibit H') purporting to show the correct zoning for his property, which would resolve a dispute over a revoked building permit.

The court found it had jurisdiction to reopen the case under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to prevent a miscarriage of justice, despite the appellant's lack of reasonable diligence in bringing the document forward.

However, after reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that exhibit H was not an authentic document.

The motion to alter the previous judgment was dismissed, and the original remediation timetable remained in effect.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a merits hearing regarding allegations that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distributions, prohibited representations, and fraud.

Timothy German and his company Ensign purported to sell shares of Bradon Technologies Ltd. to investors, making false representations about an imminent sale of Bradon's technology and offering a buy-back guarantee.

German pooled investor funds to buy Bradon shares at a lower price, keeping the difference.

Joseph Compta, Bradon's founder, facilitated German's share purchases and failed to disclose material facts to investors who contacted him, thereby participating in the fraud.

The Commission found that all respondents breached the Securities Act and acted contrary to the public interest.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order and reinstate a libel action that had been dismissed for delay.

Applying the reinstatement factors, the court found no adequate explanation for the prolonged delay, no prompt motion to reinstate, and actual as well as presumed prejudice to the defendants.

The court emphasized that the delay appeared deliberate rather than inadvertent, and that reinstatement would undermine finality in the administration of justice.

The motion was denied and the dismissal order remained in place.

The applicants sought a final injunction enforcing a non-competition covenant in a shareholders agreement after a former business participant returned to a competing enterprise and contacted prospective clients previously approached through the joint venture.

The court held the agreement unambiguously provided that the restrictive covenant survived the cessation of share ownership for five years, and rejected the argument that the termination clause nullified the restraint.

Applying the more generous approach to restrictive covenants in commercial agreements, the court found the five-year term and GTA geographic scope reasonable and enforceable.

The court further held that damages would rarely be an adequate remedy for breach of an enforceable negative covenant and granted injunctive relief against the respondents.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment arising from a claim by investors alleging they were misled about a corporation's business and seeking return of their investments.

Applying the interests of justice framework for setting aside default judgment, the court found the defendants had not acted promptly, had no plausible excuse for deliberately choosing not to defend, and failed to file evidence giving their proposed defence an air of reality.

The court also found prejudice favoured the plaintiffs given competing creditor claims and the defendants' asset constraints.

The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were fixed at $8,000.00 inclusive.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding the Chief Building Officer's revocation of a building permit.

The appellant argued the judge erred by precluding an appeal to the OMB, finding the revocation mandatory rather than discretionary, and failing to grant relief based on promissory estoppel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge did not adumbrate OMB appeal rights, the revocation was mandatory due to non-compliance with the Building Code Act, and neither the Chief Building Officer nor the judge on appeal had the authority to apply promissory estoppel.

The plaintiff brought an action for non-payment of rent against the corporate defendant and its guarantor.

The defendants filed a defence and counterclaim before the corporate defendant was voluntarily dissolved.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing the dissolved corporation lacked capacity to litigate.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under section 242(1) of the Business Corporations Act, a dissolved corporation retains the right to defend an action and continue a counterclaim commenced prior to dissolution.

The court also authorized a former director to give instructions on behalf of the dissolved corporation.

Former tenants commenced a civil action against their landlord alleging that, following eviction and termination of a residential lease, the landlord trashed or retained personal property left at the premises and sought damages of $100,000 plus punitive damages.

Earlier proceedings before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal had found a breach of an agreement to allow additional time for removal of belongings, but the Divisional Court set aside the rent abatement and directed that damages be determined.

At trial, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the alleged property, failed to establish that the landlord destroyed or retained any goods, and relied on a list of items the court found unreliable and misleading.

The court also found that certain items alleged to be present were not even available for purchase in Ontario at the relevant time.

The plaintiffs therefore failed to establish damages or liability on a balance of probabilities.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their solicitor negligence action against their former counsel.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as time-barred, finding that the statement of claim merely reiterated allegations the appellants had made three years earlier in their defence to the solicitors' action for unpaid fees.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's assessment and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The defendant lawyers moved for summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence action on the basis that it was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the claim was not discovered until evidence obtained during a later assessment hearing revealed the extent of the alleged negligence.

The court held that the plaintiffs already possessed the material facts necessary to discover their claim when they pleaded negligence in a statement of defence in earlier fee litigation.

The discoverability doctrine did not postpone the limitation period because no fundamentally new facts were discovered later.

Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed as statute‑barred.

Following competing family law motions, the court considered whether either party should receive costs.

Neither party had delivered an Offer to Settle under the applicable procedural rules.

Although the court found some of the responding party’s claims to be unreasonable, that party nevertheless achieved partial success on the motions, including an advance of funds for litigation expenses.

Because both parties achieved some measure of success and no settlement offers were made, the court concluded that neither side was entitled to a costs award.

In a family law motion arising from ongoing matrimonial litigation, the applicant sought contempt findings relating to a child travel order, variation of spousal support, and partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought a $400,000 interim advance toward equalization and litigation expenses, increased retroactive child and spousal support, and various financial and corporate controls over the applicant’s businesses.

The court declined to find contempt due to the criminal standard of proof but awarded the applicant costs associated with a cancelled trip.

The court partially granted the respondent’s request for an advance by ordering a $100,000 interim payment but refused most other relief, including variation of support and corporate control remedies.

The request for partition and sale of the matrimonial home was also refused pending trial.

The applicant vendor brought an application seeking the forfeiture of a $60,000 deposit paid by the respondent purchaser under a share purchase agreement.

The agreement was conditional on the respondent obtaining releases of the applicant's personal guarantees from third-party creditors (Roynat and Pioneer).

One creditor refused to provide a full release.

The applicant argued this was a breach of covenant entitling him to the deposit, while the respondent argued it was a failure of a condition precedent.

The court held that the requirement to obtain third-party releases was a true condition precedent dependent on the will of a third party.

Because the condition could not be fulfilled, the agreement was null and void, and the deposit was ordered returned to the respondent.