Patrick Di Monte

The tenants appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal awarding them $2,000 after the landlord disposed of their possessions following an eviction.

The tenants sought $30,000 and argued the Tribunal erred by failing to give reasons for the quantum of damages and for not allowing them to proceed in court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the failure to give reasons is an error of law, and set aside the damages award, allowing the tenants to elect whether to proceed before the Tribunal or a court.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her solicitor negligence action as statute-barred.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action where the limitation period has clearly expired.

The court found the limitation period began to run when the solicitor ceased acting for the appellant and the damage was suffered, making the action out of time.

The court also found no evidence that the respondent waived the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that an agreement of purchase and sale was null and void.

The purchasers had invoked a provision of the agreement when the vendor was unwilling or unable to comply with outstanding work orders.

The Court of Appeal found that the purchasers did not act capriciously or arbitrarily, and upheld the trial judge's finding that the agreement was null and void, entitling the purchasers to the return of their $5,000 deposit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her application for spousal support and declaring her a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the appellant failed to obtain leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that leave is not required to appeal a vexatious litigant order itself.

On the merits, the Court set aside the vexatious litigant order because the appellant was not given a fair hearing on the issue.

However, the Court upheld the summary dismissal of the spousal support claim, finding no genuine issue for trial given the lack of evidence of economic disadvantage or need arising from the marriage.

The appellants appealed an order regarding the beneficiary designation of a life insurance policy.

The appellants had owned the policy for five years but were never named as beneficiaries.

They assigned ownership back to the deceased, who then designated the respondent as the irrevocable beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the deceased was entitled to make the designation and that any prior declaration or trust agreements were overtaken by subsequent events.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant purchased a used truck from the respondent dealership, financed by the respondent bank.

After discovering engine problems and a rolled-back odometer, the appellant abandoned the truck and sued for fraud, seeking rescission and damages for lost earnings.

The trial judge awarded the appellant $8,000 for engine repairs but dismissed the fraud and consequential damages claims, while granting the bank's counterclaim for the balance of the loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that there was no evidence of a vehicle switch or conspiracy to defraud.

The appellants appealed an order rectifying a mortgage to include interest and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding convincing evidence that rectification was required to reflect the parties' prior agreement, specifically a guarantee where the appellant agreed to secure the principal amount along with interest and costs.

The notation 'nil' on the mortgage was contrary to this prior agreement.

The appellants, a builder and developer, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for $6,814.84 against the respondent purchasers.

The appellants sought reimbursement for costs incurred after the respondents refused to voluntarily grant a maintenance easement to their neighbours, arguing this breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the relevant clause in the agreement only pertained to utility easements, not maintenance easements, and therefore the respondents had not breached the contract.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal before the motion judge released his decision regarding the Crown defendants.

No steps were taken to remedy this deficiency for almost two years.

The Court of Appeal refused to extend the time to file a proper notice of appeal, finding no material to justify the extension and no merit to the appeal in light of s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a decision striking a statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the only factual allegation pleaded, which was perjury, cannot in law support any of the civil claims advanced against the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting that the evidence filed in support of the motion did not warrant the order sought.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the respondent filed no factum.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's determination that a motel transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.

The appellants attempted to advance a secret trust argument for the first time on appeal, which the Court of Appeal rejected as unsupported by the record.

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding of a fraudulent conveyance, resulting in the motel becoming an asset of the numbered company subject to the respondent's claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment refusing to admit their affidavit evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applications judge made no error in refusing to admit the affidavit, and that even if it had been admitted, it would not have changed the result.

Costs were fixed at $3,000.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a mortgage guarantee.

The appellant guarantor argued he believed he was consenting to a six-month renewal rather than a 60-month renewal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the signed renewal document clearly indicated 60 months and the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue for trial.