Patrick Di Monte

The appellant challenged refusal to set aside a struck defence and a default judgment imposing trust-based liability for unpaid construction invoices.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings on delay, credibility, and absence of arguable defence, and confirmed quantum based on deemed admissions under default rules and Construction Act trust obligations.

The plaintiff sought to set aside a Registrar's dismissal order dated October 10, 2024, which dismissed the action for delay.

The action arose from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for a property.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and sought damages against the defendants.

The court applied the Reid factors test and found that the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the substantial litigation delay spanning over six years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the principle of finality outweighed the interest in having the action decided on its merits, particularly given the inordinate delay without adequate explanation.

The applicant, as trustee of her late husband's estate, sought enforcement of a settlement agreement reached in 2020 with the respondents regarding the purchase of her interest in family business assets and real property.

The respondents had paid the settlement amount but refused to execute the Minutes of Settlement and Release and Indemnity, claiming the release provisions would compromise their separate action against their former counsel.

The court found a binding settlement existed and that enforcement was appropriate, granting judgment in accordance with the settlement terms and ordering execution of the documents within seven days.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, Shamsul Alam MD, moved for default judgment against the defendant, Azam Khan a.k.a.

MD Azam Khan, regarding alleged loans for construction at eight properties.

The defendant sought to set aside the noting in default.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to grant default judgment and noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s affidavits and the nature of the parties’ relationship.

Despite the defendant’s significant delay and lack of explanation, the court set aside the noting in default to allow the matter to proceed on the merits, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the complexity of the issues.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the granting of summary judgment in favour of the Defendant Ernst & Young LLP, on the basis that the limitation period for the Plaintiffs’ action had elapsed.

The court reviews the relevant factors under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result achieved, the complexity of the issues, and the offers to settle.

The court awards costs to Ernst & Young LLP on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of its offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, ordering the Plaintiffs to pay $125,000.00 in costs.

The court considered whether the defendant, Ali Reza Enshaei, had been properly served with the statement of claim and whether the action against him should be dismissed for lack of service.

The court found that Enshaei had not been served in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, but validated service as of April 6, 2022, when the statement of claim came to his attention.

The court also extended the time for service nunc pro tunc and found no prejudice to the defendant from the delay.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The decision addresses a motion by Heather Lynne Brose for partition and sale of the matrimonial home, an advance on equalization, and financial disclosure in the context of divorce and equalization proceedings.

The court grants partition and sale, with a four-month stay, orders disclosure by a set date, and grants leave to amend pleadings.

The court reviews the legal principles governing partition and sale, the interplay with the Family Law Act, and the requirements for financial disclosure.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Ernst & Young LLP, finding that the limitation period for the plaintiffs’ action had expired.

The decision reviews the contractual and statutory limitation periods, the relevant facts, and the legal standards for summary judgment, ultimately concluding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) on two properties and a Mareva injunction over the proceeds of a third property sale, arising from a home renovation dispute.

The defendants failed to comply with a prior court order to produce an account reconciliation, which prejudiced the plaintiffs' ability to establish their claims.

The court dismissed the requests for CPLs and the Mareva injunction without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to renew the motion once the evidentiary record is complete.

The court granted the plaintiffs' request to amend their Statement of Claim and awarded them $5,800 in costs due to the defendants' improper conduct and non-compliance with court orders.

This endorsement fixes costs for a prior motion where the Respondent successfully obtained an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she made an equivalent to a Rule 49 offer.

The Applicant sought partial costs or that each party bear their own costs.

The court found the Respondent was the successful party but did not meet or better her offer to settle.

Consequently, costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent $4,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable from his share of the matrimonial home proceeds upon sale.

The respondent brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, an 83-year-old in ill health requiring home dialysis, opposed the sale, arguing it would jeopardize his health and that financial disclosure and equalization issues were unresolved.

The court granted the order for sale, finding no evidence that the applicant's dialysis required him to remain in the specific home and that financial issues were quantifiable and could be managed with hold-backs.

The court ordered the sale to proceed with the applicant remaining in the home until closing, allowing sufficient time for new accommodations.

This endorsement addresses two motions: one by Kamali Design Home Builder Inc. ("Kamali") to declare UCY Construction & Project Management Inc.'s ("UCY") construction lien expired under sections 37 and 46 of the Construction Act, and a cross-motion by UCY to validate service of its statement of claim and extend the time for service.

The court granted Kamali's motion, declaring the UCY lien expired and dismissing the lien action, as UCY conceded the action had not been set down for trial within the statutory period.

UCY's motion to validate service was partially granted, validating service on the owner and Kamali, but not on the mortgagees, despite UCY's failure to explain the delay in service, due to actual notice and lack of prejudice.

Costs were awarded to Kamali for their successful motion, while no costs were ordered for UCY's service validation motion.

The applicants brought a motion for various relief including reconstituting the board of directors of AMPERe and piercing the corporate veil.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for injunctive relief and damages.

The court adjourned the motion due to procedural deficiencies, including poorly organized materials, lack of notice to affected non-parties, and insufficient time scheduled for the hearing.

The court ordered an urgent case conference and granted interim interim relief restraining all parties from dealing with the company's property without consent.

The appellant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership in a condominium unit, claiming the respondents wrongfully terminated a Reservation Agreement without reasonable notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the reasonable notice argument was not properly raised before the application judge or in the appeal factum.

Furthermore, the court held that the appellant's persistent refusal to complete the purchase and his failure to maintain communication negated any claim of insufficient notice regarding the agreement's termination.

Maria Amorim appealed a judgment that declared her ineligible for survivor pension benefits under the Pension Benefits Act, based on a finding that she and Daniel Carvalho were living "separate and apart" when he began receiving disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's factual finding that the parties were living separate and apart, which was entitled to deference.

The court found no reviewable error in the application judge's holistic consideration of the indicia for "separate and apart" status.

Following a decision traversing a motion in writing to be heard in open court, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The court determined that the most fair and reasonable disposition was to reserve the issue of costs to the judge who ultimately presides over the motion in open court.

The appellants appealed a decision concerning damages from an interim injunction they obtained against the respondents and compensation for work the respondents were obliged to complete under a 2010 court order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's assessment of damages, which included interest rate differentials and lender's amendment fees due to the injunction, and the compensation for expenditures related to the 2010 order.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and deferred to his interpretation of the 2010 order.

The defendant brought a motion in writing to discharge a section 71 notice on its property and release a $50,000 deposit following an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing it still had an agreement to purchase the unique property and that the defendant caused the financing failure by withholding financial information.

The court declined to decide the matter in writing due to untested conflicting assertions of fact and credibility issues, adjourning the motion to be heard in open court.

The defendants sought summary judgment based on a settlement agreement they claimed the plaintiff had accepted.

The plaintiff argued the agreement was not binding due to a minor typographical error in the release and the inclusion of non-disclosure and non-disparagement terms.

The court found that a binding settlement agreement was concluded on December 12, 2017, as the plaintiff had clearly and unconditionally accepted the offer, including the non-disclosure terms.

The minor typographical error and the plaintiff's subsequent attempts to renegotiate did not constitute repudiation by the defendants.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The parties, who own neighbouring lands, have a long history of disputes regarding their development.

The plaintiffs previously obtained an interlocutory injunction restricting the defendants from developing certain lots, which was later overturned.

The defendants sought damages resulting from the injunction, including interest rate differentials and carrying costs.

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking reimbursement for road construction costs and interest on letters of credit.

The court awarded the defendants damages for interest rate differentials and amendment fees caused by the injunction, but denied carrying costs for general delays.

On the summary judgment motion, the court ordered the defendants to pay their share of the asphalt and curb costs as agreed in a prior consent order, but rejected the plaintiffs' claims for additional municipal standard upgrades.