Peter Madorin

The plaintiffs, a cable installation company and its director, sued the City of Brantford and its IT manager for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and abuse of public office.

The IT manager made false and malicious statements about the quality of the plaintiffs' work to a supplier and others, motivated by complaints the plaintiffs had made against him.

The court found the statements were defamatory and an abuse of public office, awarding $75,000 in general damages and $75,000 in punitive damages, but dismissed the claim for lost profits.

The defendants (except FCMI) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff had invested $1,000,000 in a mining exploration venture and claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful conversion.

The plaintiff consented to dismissing the conversion claim against the moving defendants.

Regarding the fraudulent misrepresentation claim against the defendant Brodsky, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning credibility and whether the plaintiff was misled into believing it was purchasing shares in FCMI rather than Sillenger.

The court declined to use its enhanced fact-finding powers, concluding a trial was necessary.

The motion was granted in part on consent for the conversion claim, but dismissed regarding the misrepresentation claim.

The plaintiff bank sued to recover $494,425 obtained by the defendant Vincenzo Storr through fraudulent credit card cash advances.

The plaintiff sought to trace the funds into the accounts of Vincenzo's family members and related entities, arguing they were subject to a constructive trust.

The court found that Vincenzo obtained the funds by fraud and that the family members who received the funds were liable under the doctrine of knowing receipt, as the circumstances ought to have put them on inquiry.

The court granted judgment against Vincenzo and the family members who received the funds, while dismissing the claims against the corporate entities.

The plaintiff suffered a severe acquired brain injury after losing control of her vehicle on a snow-covered portion of a county road.

She sued the municipality for failing to maintain the road.

The court found that the municipality breached its statutory duty under the Municipal Act by failing to plow and salt the road, which had accumulated a large snow drift.

The court rejected the municipality's statutory defences and its argument that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for driving too fast.

The plaintiff was awarded significant damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, future care costs, and Family Law Act claims for her parents.