Patrick Bakos

The appellant purchaser sought the return of its deposit after aborting a commercial real estate transaction due to environmental issues and a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Prohibition registered on title.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the purchaser had waived the environmental condition and failed to adduce evidence that it had not received the environmental order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the waiver of the environmental condition effectively waived the title objection, and that the purchaser bore the evidentiary burden on summary judgment to prove it had not received the order.

The applicants sought an order permitting them to set off amounts arising from a tenant's realty tax overpayment against a vendor take back loan owed by a related purchaser to the respondent vendor.

The court held that an email exchange between counsel constituted a binding waiver of all rights and remedies relating to the rent rolls and estoppel certificates for the North Bay property, including any right of set-off.

Although the decision reviewed the principles governing legal and equitable set-off, the motion failed on contractual waiver.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for contaminated industrial property and sought entitlement to retain a $50,000 deposit.

The purchaser had waived an environmental condition in the agreement after receiving information regarding contamination and a Ministry of the Environment prohibition order registered on title.

The court held that the purchaser knowingly accepted the environmental risks when it waived the condition and took an assignment of the agreement, and was not entitled to refuse closing on the basis that the order had not been removed from title.

The court concluded that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

Summary judgment dismissing the action was granted.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking interim relief compelling a plaintiff to disentangle its business from that of the defendants, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The responding party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure based on an earlier offer to settle proposing dismissal of the motion without costs.

The court held that the rule did not apply in the circumstances because the motion had been brought by the defendants and the offer did not trigger the cost consequences claimed.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57.03 and considering concessions made during the motion and the broader context of the dispute, the court fixed costs of $15,000 payable in the cause.

The applicant corporation sought an injunction to prevent approval of contracts related to a proposed light rail transit project in the Region of Waterloo.

The court found the applicant lacked standing, noting it was recently incorporated, had unknown ownership, and possessed no apparent assets or ratepayer status.

The court further held the principal failed to disclose a personal interest arising from expropriation of his property connected to the project, undermining the equitable basis for relief.

The applicant failed to provide an undertaking for damages, did not establish a strong prima facie case under the Planning Act, and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a balance of convenience favouring relief.

The application for an injunction was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought revocation of two restraint orders issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and return of property proceeds held by the Seized Property Management Directorate Branch.

The Crown had previously dismissed its forfeiture application after over 35 days of hearings, finding no evidence of complicity or collusion on the part of the applicants.

The court granted the application, ordering revocation of the restraint orders and distribution of the remaining proceeds pursuant to a consent order among the interested parties.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 90-day adjournment to allow the Civil Remedies Office to investigate whether to commence separate proceedings, finding such a referral constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.

The appellant appealed an order varying a restraining order that permitted the sale of a property and directed the distribution of proceeds to a mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that neither the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act nor section 490 of the Criminal Code provides a right of appeal from an order varying a restraining order in these circumstances.

A defendant against whom the action had been discontinued brought a motion under Rule 23.05 seeking costs of the action and delivery of a release.

The motion was brought more than 14 months after the notice of discontinuance, well beyond the 30‑day deadline prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that although the deadline may be extended under Rule 3.02, the moving party must provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and demonstrate absence of prejudice.

While the responding plaintiffs would not have been prejudiced, the moving party provided no explanation for the delay.

The court also found there had been no agreement requiring delivery of a release because the parties had not reached a meeting of the minds on the terms of settlement.

The request for an extension of time was refused and the motion dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.

The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.