Pollak

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for the unpaid purchase price of a shipment of shrimp.

The Court of Appeal had previously directed a rehearing applying the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

The defendant argued it was entitled to avoid the contract due to a defective Health Certificate and that the plaintiff's acceptance of the returned shrimp mitigated damages or constituted unjust enrichment.

The court found the defendant did not properly declare the contract avoided under the CISG and that there was no agreement excusing payment of the purchase price upon the return of the goods.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the full purchase price plus 8% interest.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The parties had agreed at the hearing that the successful party would receive $25,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to depart from this agreement and awarded $25,000 in costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment claiming he was terminated without cause with 72 weeks remaining on a fixed-term employment contract.

He sought liquidated damages for the balance of the term, while leaving alternative claims regarding the validity of the termination clause for trial if unsuccessful.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate in these circumstances.

Applying the principles from Butera and Hryniak, the court held that bifurcating the issues risked inconsistent findings at trial and would not serve the goals of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's Statement of Defence without leave to amend and for default judgment.

The defendant admitted to misappropriating funds but claimed her actions were caused by mental distress resulting from the plaintiff's demands that she assist in fraudulent acts.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the defence could not succeed, but held that the particulars improperly focused on the plaintiff's alleged illegal acts rather than the acts causing the defendant's stress.

The court struck paragraphs 6 to 14 of the Statement of Defence with leave to amend.

The applicants brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of a Master's report regarding the amount owing under a boiler and machinery insurance policy issued by the respondent.

The applicants argued the Master erred in law by distinguishing between the valuation clauses in their property policies and the respondent's policy, and by accepting the respondent's valuation evidence which allegedly factored in depreciation improperly.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding no error in the Master's conclusion that the respondent's policy required replacement with property of 'like kind, capacity, size and quality', which differed from the 'new for old' replacement cost coverage in the applicants' policies.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for an admitted debt of $164,451.82.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging that a representative of the plaintiff conspired with a third-party livestock dealer to exert undue influence and duress, forcing the defendant to sell his livestock and ruining his business.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and dismissed the counterclaim, finding it was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002 and lacked sufficient evidence to establish the tort of civil conspiracy.

The plaintiff rented his high-performance vehicle to the defendant for a weekend.

The vehicle suffered catastrophic engine failure while in the defendant's possession.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, alleging the defendant over-revved the engine and drove beyond legal limits, evidenced by a depleted methanol tank.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement to use utmost care and return the vehicle in substantially the same condition.

The plaintiff was awarded $53,535.30 in damages for the engine replacement.

Claims for punitive damages, the defendant's counterclaim for the rental fee, and a third-party claim were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that they validly rescinded a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act due to deficient disclosure, and claiming rescission damages of $228,611.83.

The defendants argued that adequate disclosure was provided and that the plaintiffs did not rely on the allegedly missing documents.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial due to significant conflicts in the evidence regarding what documents were provided and when, and whether the plaintiffs were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed investment decision.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The police defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, who had been charged with careless driving, alleged a broad organized crime conspiracy, racial profiling, and malicious investigation by the police.

The court found that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it contained bald, inflammatory allegations unsupported by material facts and failed to plead the required elements for conspiracy, negligent investigation, or Charter breaches.

The motion was granted and the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The applicant applied for an order to resolve an insurance policy dispute by arbitration at JAMS offices in Toronto.

The respondent argued that the arbitration should be conducted under the English Arbitration Act and that the applicant had not properly commenced the arbitration.

The court found that its jurisdiction to intervene only arises if there is a failure of the parties to agree on the appointment procedure.

Since the applicant had not followed the agreed procedure by making a proper written request and appointing its arbitrator, the court declined to intervene and dismissed the application.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the defendants sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and late withdrawal of serious allegations.

The plaintiff argued that full indemnity costs were not justified and challenged the time spent by the defendants.

The court found that the defendants' offer to settle, which proposed dismissing the action without costs, was a valid compromise.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old senior executive with 30 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court awarded a 24-month reasonable notice period based on the Bardal factors.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lost bonus during the notice period and a pro-rated bonus for the year of termination, finding that the bonus plan's language unambiguously excluded such payments upon termination.

The court ordered the employer to pay the balance of the notice period in monthly installments, subject to the plaintiff's continuing duty to mitigate.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking possession of a property pursuant to a reverse mortgage that went into default due to unpaid property taxes.

The self-represented defendant did not deny the default but raised unclear allegations of fraud and unreasonableness.

The court applied the Hryniak framework, found no genuine issue requiring a trial, and granted the plaintiff's motion for possession, awarding partial indemnity costs of $9,000.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligence, breach of Charter rights, and defamation arising from his suspension from practice.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants exceeded their statutory authority by demanding client files without reasonable suspicion on a file-by-file basis.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff's claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on unappealed Law Society Tribunal proceedings, and that the defendants were protected by statutory immunity under s. 9 of the Law Society Act as there was no evidence of bad faith.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing the dispute fell within the scope of an arbitration clause in the employment agreement.

The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the arbitration clause was void for lack of consideration and that subsequent amendments to the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the courts.

Applying the competence-competence principle, the court found it was arguable that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause and that the plaintiff had not established a clear case of invalidity.

The motion for a stay of proceedings was granted, leaving the jurisdictional challenge to be resolved first by the arbitrator.

The applicant, a self-represented defendant in a defamation action, brought a Rowbotham application seeking publicly funded counsel to defend against a civil contempt motion for allegedly breaching an injunction.

The Attorney General opposed the application, arguing that Rowbotham principles do not apply to civil contempt proceedings between private parties and that the applicant did not meet the test.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issues in the contempt motion were not legally complex and the applicant had the necessary factual knowledge to defend herself, meaning her Charter rights would not be violated without counsel.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down several medical cannabis dispensaries operating in violation of its zoning by-laws.

The dispensary operators brought a cross-motion seeking an interlocutory exemption from the by-laws and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing that the existing regulatory scheme failed to provide reasonable access to medical cannabis.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the City, as there is a presumption that validly enacted laws serve the public interest.

The court granted the City's injunction but declined to issue an order directing police enforcement, noting the lack of statutory authority for such an order in a civil proceeding.

The operators' cross-motion was dismissed.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment and default judgment against the defendants, the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on a term in the mortgage.

The court found the request for substantial indemnity costs premature, as the judgment might be paid without needing to enforce the mortgage.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $14,000 based on the parties' prior agreement, with directions for assessment if the parties could not agree on the total costs of the action.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata and abuse of process due to a prior construction lien action.

The plaintiff had previously obtained a default judgment on a counterclaim in the lien action and now alleged the moving parties stripped the corporate defendant's assets to make it judgment proof.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of fraud and asset stripping against the personal defendants were not and could not have been adjudicated in the prior lien action, as there was no judgment against the corporate defendant at that time.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion for summary judgment.

The successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the motion was unreasonable.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not justify such an award.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $43,777.33.