Ralph Cuervo-Lorens

Following a prior costs endorsement, it came to the court's attention that the moving party had renewed an original motion for additional disclosure that had not been brought to the court's attention due to filing irregularities.

The court reviewed its prior costs order and limited the cost award to the sum associated with fake case references, staying the balance of the costs order pending a scheduled in-person hearing on the renewed motion.

The moving party defendants in a multi-defendant civil action brought a motion for dismissal of the action against them without costs.

The plaintiff municipality had settled the action with the moving parties.

Having regard to the consents filed, the unopposed defendants, and the defendants who had not responded despite being duly served, the court granted the motion and issued an order in accordance with the draft order filed.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion to strike the statements of defence filed by the self-represented defendants in two related fraud actions.

The court reviewed the motion materials and the responding party's correspondence, then set a schedule for responding materials, reply, and oral submissions rather than deciding the motion on the written record alone.

The responding parties were given until April 7, 2026 to file responding materials, with reply due April 17, 2026 and oral submissions scheduled for April 24, 2026.

Following the adjournment of the self-represented respondent's motion on a prior hearing date due to improper conduct — specifically the submission of fabricated legal authorities and misrepresentations to the court — the court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away.

The self-represented respondent disputed the quantum, arguing costs should not exceed approximately $1,100.

The court found the respondent's submissions unconvincing and highlighted his failure to show remorse, his continued misrepresentations, and his abandonment of the renewed motion.

Costs were fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, representing both the costs of responding to the flawed factum and the totality of the responding party's efforts.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related economic torts arising from the formation of Icon Plumbing and the departure of key personnel from Riva Plumbing.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants competed unlawfully, misused confidential information, or caused any compensable loss.

The counterclaim for unpaid bonuses by Mike Ladisa and Joseph Ferrari was allowed, with damages awarded in the agreed amount plus interest.

The plaintiff sought an order to compel the sale of assets (a property, rural land, and vehicles) under Rule 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging asset deterioration and seeking payment into court.

The defendants raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing a Master could not vary a judge's preservation order or grant mandatory injunctive relief.

The Master declined jurisdiction, finding that compelling a sale would effectively set aside or vary existing preservation orders made by a judge, and that mandatory orders are exclusively for judges.

Alternatively, the Master found that even if jurisdiction existed, the relief would not be granted as the assets were adequately protected by existing orders and undertakings, and compelling a sale would prejudice the defendants and a non-party (Jonathan Rewa) without a proven claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants wrongfully repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property in Burlington.

The vendor resold the property approximately two months after relisting it through the same agent.

The motion judge granted summary judgment ordering the appellants to pay the difference in purchase price and related expenses, finding the vendor acted reasonably in mitigating damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the resale steps were unreasonable and challenging the price differential.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision.

The appellants acknowledged they added the broker and agent as parties solely to obtain disclosure of their file and market data, providing no legitimate basis to maintain the action against them.

A real estate brokerage sued for payment of commission arising from the sale of a commercial property after the vendor refused payment.

The vendor argued that the listing agreement had been cancelled, that the brokerage did not introduce the purchaser during the listing period, and that the commission had effectively been paid through other benefits.

The vendor also counterclaimed alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence by the broker for failing to document an alleged price adjustment agreement that led to related litigation.

The court found that the broker introduced the purchaser during the currency of the listing agreement and that the sale agreement was executed within the holdover period, entitling the brokerage to commission.

The court rejected the alleged cancellation, rejected claims of payment “in kind,” and dismissed the counterclaim due to lack of credible evidence.