Paul Apostoli Gribilas

The plaintiff, Samuel Stern, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Mehran Moeinifar, for an unpaid $1,000,000 loan secured by a mortgage and a personal guarantee.

The court granted summary judgment in the amount of $1,445,673.52 (including interest), finding no genuine issue for trial.

The defendant’s arguments regarding lack of Ontario jurisdiction and forum non conveniens were rejected, as the defendant had attorned to Ontario’s jurisdiction and the relevant contracts were made in Ontario.

The court found the guarantee enforceable and the defendant liable.

This motion concerned an application by 2441799 Ontario Inc. to amend its Notice of Application to add Gil Shcolyar as a respondent and to make related amendments.

The applicant sought to add claims against Mr. Shcolyar, the sole director and officer of the respondent 2474187 Ontario Inc., alleging improper conduct related to a lease renewal, a proposed property purchase, and the termination of the lease.

The court granted leave to add Mr. Shcolyar as a respondent and allowed most of the proposed amendments, finding sufficient factual underpinning.

However, allegations of fraud against Mr. Shcolyar were dismissed without prejudice, with leave granted to the applicant to re-plead them with sufficient particulars.

The tenant appealed the dismissal of his application to compel the landlord's consent to a commercial lease assignment.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in applying the doctrine of waiver, which was not raised by the parties, and in failing to find that the landlord had unreasonably neglected and refused consent.

The landlord failed to respond within the lease's 15-day deadline and subsequently imposed unreasonable conditions, including a demolition clause and last-minute, overreaching requests for financial information.

The appeal was allowed, and the landlord was ordered to consent to the assignment.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his claim arising from a neighbour dispute concerning the location of a wall on the respondent's property.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant's allegations regarding the respondent's counsel were found to be unsupported by evidence.

The counter-claim was dismissed on consent.