Pollak

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against the condominium corporation and its board of directors seeking an oppression remedy and compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The applicants alleged the board acted oppressively by ignoring communications, mishandling an elevator malfunction, and copying the applicants' employers on a warning letter regarding harassment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board acted reasonably and in good faith in response to the applicants' excessive communications.

The court also held that several of the applicants' claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that defamation claims could not be brought via application.

The applicants sought damages for the respondent's refusal to honour agreements granting them 750,000 stock options.

The respondent argued the applicants did not meet the eligibility requirements of its stock option plan.

The court found that the respondent's board of directors had validly approved the option grants and that the respondent's subsequent cancellation of the options defeated the applicants' reasonable expectations, constituting oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court awarded damages based on the value of the options, but declined to award punitive damages.

The plaintiff hospital brought an action against the defendant contractor for damages resulting from an over-humidification event that damaged operating room equipment.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to properly install an air handling unit by omitting a required interlock between the supply fan and humidifier.

The defendant argued the damage was caused by hospital staff manually overriding the system.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract due to the installation deficiency and failure to train hospital staff, awarding the plaintiff full damages of $908,345.13.

The applicant sought a constructive trust over $2.3 million in proceeds from the sale of the respondent's property, alleging the respondent's husband, a former employee, stole the funds and funneled them into joint accounts to purchase and renovate the property.

The court dismissed the claims for knowing receipt and knowing assistance, finding no evidence the respondent knew of the alleged theft or received the funds for her own benefit.

The respondent proved the majority of the property funds came from legitimate sources.

However, the court found unjust enrichment for $177,632.28 that was directly traced from the husband's company account to the property, awarding that amount to the applicant and releasing the balance to the respondent.

The plaintiff seller and defendant buyers both moved for summary judgment in an action arising from a failed $7 million commercial real estate transaction.

The buyers refused to close and terminated the agreement because an outstanding work permit remained on title, which the seller failed to remove or insure over by the contractual deadline.

The seller claimed the buyers repudiated the contract in bad faith and sought forfeiture of the $350,000 deposit plus punitive damages.

The court found that the outstanding work permit was a legitimate concern and a valid objection to title, entitling the buyers to terminate the agreement.

The buyers' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the deposit was ordered returned to them.

The plaintiff landlord and defendant tenant both brought motions for summary judgment regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease.

The landlord claimed the tenant owed over $2 million in profits from three subleases, while the tenant argued it incurred losses after deducting reasonable costs.

The court held that the tenant could not deduct rent paid for retained Atrium space as a reasonable cost of the subleases.

However, the court found that rent lost during rent-free fixturing periods, as well as legal fees and real estate commissions, were reasonable costs that could be deducted from the sublease profits.

The plaintiff, a nightclub operator, brought an action against the City of Toronto and a city councillor for misfeasance in public office, abuse of public office, unlawful interference with economic relations, and conspiracy to defame and injure.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants conspired with the Toronto Police Service to target the nightclub with searches and inspections to force its closure.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of a conspiracy, bad faith, or unlawful conduct by the defendants.

The court held that the city councillor's statements were protected by qualified privilege and statutory immunity, and that the City was not liable for the actions of the police.

The plaintiffs sued their accounting firm and its principals for fraud, breach of contract, and misappropriation of funds after discovering that corporate taxes and payroll deductions had never been remitted to the CRA.

The court found the accounting firm and the son who misappropriated the funds liable for damages.

However, the court dismissed the claims against the father, finding he was not willfully blind and the firm was not his alter ego.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff corporation sued its former CEO and director, alleging he breached his fiduciary duties by resigning to usurp lucrative hospital management opportunities in London and Abu Dhabi for his own benefit through a new corporate entity.

Following a four-week trial, the court dismissed the action, finding that the opportunities in question were not mature, were not in the plaintiff's direct line of business, and were not available to the plaintiff due to a lack of trust from the contracting parties.

The court concluded that the opportunities arose from the defendant's personal relationships and professional reputation, and therefore did not fairly belong to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff security company brought a Simplified Procedure action against the defendants for unpaid standby security services provided during a potential labour strike at the Sheraton hotel.

The court found that a contract was formed based on email exchanges between the parties and that the plaintiff performed the standby services.

The court awarded the plaintiff $32,950.80 in damages for the unpaid invoice.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for punitive damages, personal liability against the individual defendant, and the tort of deceit, finding insufficient evidence of dishonesty or an independent actionable wrong.

The appellants appealed an arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and erred by proceeding in their absence after they refused to execute the arbitration agreement and did not attend the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator correctly proceeded under section 27(3) of the Arbitration Act.

The court held that any jurisdictional objection must be raised before the arbitrator at the beginning of the hearing, which the appellants failed to do.

The defendants, former legal counsel for the plaintiffs, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence action on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were negligent in failing to argue the unconscionability and public policy branches of the Tercon test regarding an exclusion clause in the underlying trial against Toyota.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in the underlying action, as the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' advice to pursue appeals and a legal proceeding was not an 'appropriate means' to seek a remedy until the appeal process was exhausted.

The sublandlord brought a motion for summary judgment in its action for breach of a commercial sublease and to dismiss the subtenant's related action for unlawful termination and damages.

The subtenant had intentionally withheld rent during surrender negotiations, prompting the sublandlord to terminate the sublease and lock out the subtenant.

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate despite the intertwined nature of the actions.

The court held that the sublandlord lawfully terminated the sublease due to the subtenant's deliberate default and dismissed the subtenant's claims for lack of evidence.

The sublandlord was awarded damages for rent arrears and operating costs, but its claim for future loss of profit was denied due to insufficient evidence.

The parties requested corrections to an endorsement released on May 7, 2021.

The court issued an addendum to remove Chubb Insurance Company of Canada and Novex Insurance Company as parties to the applications, and to add a second file number to the citation.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was an employee covered by a collective agreement and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff argued he was misclassified as an independent contractor and his claim was rooted in a pre-employment contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the existence of a pre-employment agreement is a disputed factual issue that must be determined at trial, not on a pleadings motion.

A law firm brought an application for an interpleader order to pay funds held in escrow into court, while a condominium corporation brought a cross-application seeking a mandatory injunction to force the law firm to pay the funds to the City of Toronto for property tax arrears pursuant to a settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the law firm's application, finding it could not use interpleader rules to protect itself from a potential breach of its own undertaking.

The court also dismissed the condominium corporation's application, finding it inappropriate to proceed by way of application without demonstrating a proper legal basis for the requested injunctive relief.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant purchaser's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser counterclaimed for the return of his deposit, arguing the contract was frustrated by a significant drop in the real estate market that prevented him from securing financing.

The court granted the vendor's motion, finding that a market decline does not constitute frustration or impossibility.

The vendor was awarded damages for the loss in property value upon resale and carrying costs, less the deposit, but the court declined to enforce a 20% interest rate provision in the agreement, applying the Courts of Justice Act rate instead.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to recognize and enforce a British Columbia default judgment in Ontario.

The B.C. judgment had recognized a Privy Council judgment against the defendant.

The defendant argued that the B.C. judgment was a 'ricochet judgment' and that B.C. lacked a real and substantial connection for the purposes of extra-provincial enforcement.

The court agreed, finding that while B.C. legislation provided a presumption of jurisdiction for local enforcement, it did not satisfy the common law real and substantial connection test required for enforcement outside of B.C. The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that it had standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue for breach of contract based on a restrictive covenant in an agreement of purchase and sale between the defendants and a non-party.

The defendants argued that contractual interpretation is a question of mixed fact and law, making it inappropriate for a Rule 21 motion where evidence is generally inadmissible.

The court agreed with the defendants, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Sattva, and dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the agreement would require evidence and could not be determined as a pure question of law.

Metrolinx applied for a warrant to take possession of expropriated lands, while the respondent landlords and tenants applied to postpone possession, arguing Metrolinx failed to make a valid, good-faith offer of compensation under s. 25 of the Expropriations Act.

Metrolinx had offered $1.00 due to alleged environmental contamination but refused to answer questions or provide environmental reports during examinations.

The respondents sought an adjournment to bring a refusals motion before a Master.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the respondents had a reasonable basis to test whether Metrolinx's offer was made in good faith.