Paul Antonius Gemmink

The applicant, Giuseppe Campo, as Estate Trustee and in his personal capacity, brought an application alleging that the respondent, Melinda Longo, breached her fiduciary duties as Maria Campo's attorney for property and unjustly enriched herself.

The applicant sought orders compelling the respondent to pass her accounts, declaring certain joint bank accounts and a TFSA as estate assets, and invalidating the TFSA beneficiary designation due to Maria's incapacity and the respondent's undue influence.

The respondent conceded the joint accounts were estate assets but disputed the TFSA and the requirement to pass accounts.

The court granted all orders sought by the applicant, finding suspicious circumstances regarding the TFSA designation and compelling the respondent to account for her actions as attorney for property.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for adverse possession of a strip of land between two residences in Toronto.

The application judge found that the appellants failed to meet their onus to establish adverse possession.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the application judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence, particularly that the predecessor in title recognized the respondents' ownership and did not intend to exclude them from the disputed land.

The appellant appealed a decision by the motion judge upholding a default payment of $60,000 in a settlement agreement, arguing it was unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's thorough analysis and conclusion that the default payment was reasonable in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

A homebuilder appealed the dismissal of its action against its Commercial General Liability insurer for a declaration of duty to defend and indemnify in relation to a claim by homeowners.

The homeowners had purchased a lot and home where the property grading exceeded municipal standards.

The builder failed to include a required warning in the purchase agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding no coverage under the CGL policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the claims were either based on intentional conduct or were clearly excluded under the policy's exclusion clauses, particularly those relating to property damage arising from defects in the builder's work and failure to provide warnings.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendant, Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, against the plaintiff, Mason Homes Limited.

Lombard sought partial indemnity costs of $13,269.09.

The court found the requested costs to be proportionate and reasonable, considering the scope of the claims and the utility of Lombard's motion materials.

Applying the principles of proportionality, reasonable expectations, and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded Lombard its full requested costs.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding sought leave to discontinue the action under s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The claim concerned retiree health benefits allegedly promised to spouses of employees who accepted an early retirement program.

The representative plaintiff ceased to have a personal cause of action after his spouse predeceased him and he was unable to find another class member willing to assume the representative role.

The court held that, given the small class size, lack of interest among potential class members, and the marginal economics of the litigation, discontinuance was appropriate.

Leave to discontinue was granted subject to notice being provided to potential class members.

The plaintiff commercial landlord sought approximately $152,000 in damages representing unpaid rent for the balance of a commercial lease term after the tenants’ deli business closed.

The court found the landlord had changed the locks on the premises before the statutory 15‑day period for unpaid rent expired and without complying with notice requirements under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The lock change constituted a re‑entry that terminated the lease.

As a result, the landlord forfeited its entitlement to claim future rent for the remaining lease term.

Although mitigation arguments were addressed, they were ultimately unnecessary because the improper termination barred recovery of the claimed damages.