Peter D. Woloshyn

This decision addresses two issues in the context of a long-running guardianship and estate dispute: (1) the standing of Indu and Meenu Shewa to participate in the passing of accounts of Sundri Shewa’s property, and (2) the disclosure of medical information regarding Sundri Shewa’s capacity.

The court grants standing to Indu and Meenu, finding their rights and interests may be directly affected by the outcome, and sets out a careful process for the disclosure of sensitive medical records, balancing the need for evidence with privacy concerns.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial where the plaintiff partially succeeded on his claim for $100,000 and successfully defended a $2 million counterclaim.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, but reduced the claimed fees by $10,000 due to the plaintiff's late abandonment of general damages claims, which resulted in unnecessary expenditures of time.

The final costs were fixed at $70,876.32.

The Plaintiff sought repayment of a $100,000 loan from the Defendant.

The Defendant argued the loan was conditional on the sale of certain assembled properties and counterclaimed for $2 million in damages, alleging breach of a partnership agreement related to a land assembly project.

The court found no evidence that the loan was conditional and held it was due.

Furthermore, the court determined that no enforceable partnership agreement existed between the parties regarding the land development or sale, as essential terms were never settled or formalized in writing as intended.

The Plaintiff's action for the loan repayment was allowed, and the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The respondents in a will challenge brought a motion for the production of the applicant's psychiatric records, arguing the records might contain evidence supporting their limitation period defence.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the Ryan test for privilege.

The court found the records were highly confidential, of questionable relevance, and that the harm to the applicant's mental health and ongoing psychiatric treatment outweighed any potential benefit to the litigation.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay the balance owing on a restoration contract.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding a fixed-price contract, assessing deficiencies, and adding the respondent's corporation as a plaintiff at the start of trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the contract and deficiencies.

The court also held that adding the corporate plaintiff was either done on consent or was a permissible correction of a misnomer, as the appellant knew he was dealing with the individual respondent's company and suffered no prejudice.

The applicants brought a motion to strike a notice of objection filed by the deceased's former common-law spouse regarding the deceased's will and powers of attorney.

The respondent alleged that the deceased lacked capacity and was unduly influenced by the applicants.

The court found no evidence to support the allegations of incapacity or undue influence.

Furthermore, the respondent was bound by comprehensive minutes of settlement executed prior to the deceased's death, in which she released her rights to his estate.

The court struck the notice of objection as frivolous and vexatious and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants.

The appellant purchaser failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property in Mississauga.

After receiving multiple extensions, the appellant ultimately did not close due to inability to obtain mortgage financing.

The respondent vendors resold the property for a lower price and sued for damages.

The motion judge awarded damages for the difference in price plus consequential losses, and ordered forfeiture of the $75,000 deposit without crediting it toward the damages.

On appeal, the court upheld the damages award but reversed the deposit forfeiture issue, holding that the deposit must be credited toward the damages when the vendor suffers a loss from the purchaser's breach.

The applicant executor sought court direction regarding a charitable gift to a respondent organization whose charitable status had been revoked.

Concurrently, the respondent organization moved for leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court denied leave for non-lawyer representation, citing the proposed representative's past conduct and inability to advocate effectively, and ordered the organization to appoint a solicitor.

The court also allowed the executor to pay the disputed funds into court and added the Public Guardian and Trustee as a party with carriage of the application, recognizing its parens patriae role in charitable matters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction, alleging he was the victim of mortgage fraud by his agent and could not obtain financing.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement and that the alleged fraud did not excuse his failure to close.

The plaintiffs were awarded the $75,000 deposit and $308,688.31 in damages for the difference in the resale price and carrying costs.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for relief from forfeiture.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because his name was misspelled on the application.

The Divisional Court held that the misnomer was a procedural matter, not a question of law, and that the appeal was devoid of merit.

The court quashed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay, and directed the sheriff to enforce the eviction order.

The appellant and respondent jointly purchased a property and executed a Trust Agreement.

The appellant later moved out and stopped paying carrying costs.

The application judge dismissed the appellant's application for partition and sale, relying on equitable doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and waiver, and awarded him only his initial down payment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that equitable defences cannot defeat a legal claim based on a registered Trust Agreement.

The court set aside the lower court's decision, ordered the property to be sold, and directed an accounting before a Master to determine appropriate adjustments for contributions and benefits.

The defendant moved to set aside the power of sale of his partially-built cottage and to set aside a default judgment arising from mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The court considered the statutory right of redemption under the Mortgages Act and the defendant’s claim that the property was sold below market value.

The court found that the right of redemption had expired when the agreement of purchase and sale was entered into and that the defendant lacked the ability to redeem the mortgage in any event.

Evidence from the listing agent and appraisals demonstrated that the property received reasonable market exposure and that the sale price was not improvident.

The court also declined to set aside the default judgment, finding the defendant had been personally served, provided no explanation for failing to defend, and had no plausible defence to the mortgage default.

This was a costs decision following dismissal of an application for partition and sale of jointly held property, with a prior order requiring the respondents to pay the applicant $13,000 from any future sale or refinancing.

The applicant sought costs up to the date of the respondents' settlement offer, but the court held the respondents were wholly successful on the real issue: preserving the property's equity and restraining enforcement of bare legal title.

Applying the fair and reasonable costs principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court fixed the respondents' costs at $13,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court set that amount off against the applicant's prior $13,000 recovery so that the formal judgment would simply declare the respondents' ownership and dismiss the applicant's claims.

The applicant sought a partition and sale of a property he purchased with his brother-in-law in 1993 under a trust agreement.

The applicant moved out in 1996 and stopped contributing to the mortgage and expenses, leaving the respondents to carry the property for nearly 20 years.

The court dismissed the application for 50% of the proceeds, applying the equitable doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and waiver, finding it would be fundamentally unfair for the applicant to share in the capital appreciation after standing idly by.

The applicant was awarded only the return of his initial $13,000 down payment upon the future sale or refinancing of the property.