Rebecca Huang

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sued the defendant for an unpaid commission of $237,300 under a Buyer Representation Agreement after the defendant failed to close on the purchase of a farm property.

The defendant, who did not speak English, signed the agreement on behalf of her husband without understanding that a commission would be owed if the transaction did not close.

The court found that the plaintiff's agent, acting as a fiduciary, failed to translate or explain the agreement to the defendant.

The court accepted the defence of non est factum, declaring the agreement void ab initio, and dismissed the action.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the interlocutory decision of Akazaki J. dated December 5, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the agreed upon amount of $7,500, all inclusive.

The defendant Ioan Hossu brought a motion to strike the action against him under Rule 21 without leave to amend.

The court struck certain claims (breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith in contractual performance, and breach of fiduciary duty) without leave to amend, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court struck other claims (fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment) with leave to amend, determining that while deficiencies existed, they could potentially be cured through proper pleading.

The court did not strike the conversion claim.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's request to adjourn the motion and ordered that the defendant provide bank account information regarding disputed funds held in Cuba.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's July 29, 2025 decision granting the plaintiffs' motion to extend a Mareva injunction and dismissing the defendant's cross-motion to discharge it.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis (80%) in the amount of $60,374.66, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis (60%) in the amount of $46,459.84.

The defendant argued costs should be awarded in the cause.

The court adopted the principle that costs for interlocutory injunctions should generally be reserved to the trial judge, but fixed the quantum at this stage to avoid duplication.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $46,459.84 to the successful party in the cause, finding that substantial indemnity costs were not appropriate as no final finding of fraud had been made.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction originally issued ex parte by Lack J. on April 23, 2025, freezing the defendant's assets.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the injunction.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented himself as a currency exchange operator, received approximately $1.86 million in Chinese currency from the plaintiff, and failed to remit corresponding Canadian dollars.

The defendant subsequently acknowledged the debt through multiple written agreements but refused to repay and allegedly misrepresented property ownership to secure the debt.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, that the defendant had assets in the jurisdiction, and that there was a serious risk of asset dissipation based on the defendant's pattern of fraudulent conduct.

The court extended the Mareva injunction in its amended form, which had been substantially modified through consent orders to permit the defendant access to funds for living expenses, business operations, legal fees, and mortgage refinancing, with approximately $500,000 in surplus borrowed funds remaining in the defendant's lawyer's trust account.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate disposition of costs following the granting of an interlocutory proprietary injunction in a commercial dispute involving $16 million advanced by the applicants to the respondents.

The court considers whether costs should be awarded immediately or in the cause, referencing relevant case law and legal commentary.

Ultimately, the court orders that costs be in the cause, given the expedited hearing and the nature of the proceedings.

The court considered a motion for an interlocutory proprietary injunction and leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over three development properties.

The Applicants advanced $16 million to the Respondents for property purchases, claiming a common intention that the properties would stand as security.

The Respondents argued the advances were loans or investments without property interests.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding an equitable mortgage and unjust enrichment, granted injunctions over two properties, and a limited injunction over the third to allow refinancing.

The court also found that, if necessary, a CPL would be granted.

Wiseway Global Canada Consulting Ltd. sought leave to further amend its statement of claim following examination for discovery.

CTBC Bank Corp. (Canada) opposed the motion, arguing that many proposed amendments improperly pleaded evidence and argument, contained unnecessary repetition and inconsistencies, and included unsupported or scandalous headings.

The court, applying Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, granted leave in part.

It allowed most of the proposed amendments, emphasizing that a statement of claim should contain all material facts and that inconsistencies with a reply are not a bar to amendment.

However, the court denied leave for certain paragraphs and a heading that were found to improperly plead evidence or argument, or were unsupported by material facts (specifically, the "Ponzi scheme" characterization).

The court heard two applications concerning the interpretation of an Asset Purchase Agreement.

The vendor (1000197094 ONTARIO INC.) sought a declaration that Section 3.04 of the agreement constituted an arbitration agreement.

The purchaser (1872488 ONTARIO INC.) argued against this and brought a cross-application seeking disclosure of information related to Work in Progress and Net Earned Revenue valuations, and a determination that the valuation process was not arbitration.

The court found that Section 3.04 was indeed an arbitration agreement, requiring a final and binding determination by an independent accounting firm.

The court also ordered ongoing disclosure of relevant information by both parties regarding Work in Progress and Net Earned Revenue, clarifying that these two items were the subject of the dispute.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay was successful in his application and Mohammad Ali Eksir's application was dismissed.

Yousufzay sought full indemnity costs, while Eksir argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found Yousufzay entitled to costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity basis due to Eksir's unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty and adverse credibility findings against him.

The court declined full indemnity costs, finding the case did not feature grave misconduct, and awarded $170,000.00 in all-inclusive substantial indemnity costs to Yousufzay.

This case involved cross-applications between two shareholders/directors of a closely held corporation, United Investment.

Mohammad Ali Eksir sought a declaration of oppression under section 248 of the OBCA and an order to wind up the corporation, alleging self-dealing and financial misconduct by Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay.

Yousufzay sought an order for a shareholder meeting and production of financial records.

The court dismissed Eksir's oppression application, finding he failed to prove his reasonable expectations were violated, as he was aware of and implicitly approved the impugned transactions (shareholder loans, donations, home renovation expenses, snow clearing).

The court also dismissed the request for winding up, stating it was not a just and equitable remedy given the lack of serious harm and the availability of less drastic remedies.

Yousufzay's application for a shareholder meeting with varied quorum requirements under section 106 of the OBCA was granted to allow for the appointment of directors and address corporate governance issues.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Myers J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff, Canadian Flight Academy Ltd. (CFA), brought a motion seeking production of documents and answers to refusals from the City of Oshawa in a dispute over a lease extension at the Oshawa Executive Airport.

The motion addressed three main areas: airport noise complaints, land parcel "Part 42" usage, and a proposed land sale.

A significant portion of the ruling focused on the City's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over various emails and "closed reports." The court applied principles of relevance, proportionality, and third-party privacy, and conducted a detailed, document-by-document analysis of privilege claims, granting some production requests while upholding many of the City's privilege assertions.

The plaintiff objected to the defendant's production of 17,000 documents in a common Schedule "A" for two intertwined actions, arguing for separate listings.

The court dismissed the objection, finding the issues in both proceedings virtually the same and the production not extraordinarily burdensome, especially with the availability of e-discovery tools.

The court deemed the defendant's approach efficient, affordable, and proportionate.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondents in the appeal (IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt), fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

This decision followed an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This appeal concerned an insurer's duty to defend where the insurer alleged material misrepresentations and breach of policy conditions by the insured.

The insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, denied defence to IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt against a copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming the insured misrepresented their business operations in the insurance application.

The motion judge granted the duty to defend, refusing to consider extrinsic evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, affirming the duty to defend.

The court applied a flexible approach, distinguishing this from a typical 'pleadings rule' case, and held that resolving the alleged misrepresentations would require determining contested factual issues central to the underlying litigation, which is inappropriate at the duty to defend stage.

This endorsement addresses an application by Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. to enforce a Chinese judgment against Fasteners & Fittings Inc. The respondent opposed enforcement, raising defences of natural justice and public policy, arguing the foreign judgment was obtained unfairly and its enforcement would violate Canadian public policy, especially given related fraud allegations against Michael Wang (owner of the applicant) in a separate Canadian action.

The court found that the complex issues, including the potential for a new defence to foreign judgment enforcement and the need for full evidence and participation from all interested parties (including Michael Wang), could not be fairly determined in a summary process.

Consequently, the application was ordered to proceed to trial as an action, with directions for pleadings, discovery, and a common trial with the related action.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for particulars of an oral supply agreement alleged by the plaintiff in its Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff argued that further particulars were not required and that the issue was res judicata based on a prior Rule 21 motion decision.

The court found that the prior Rule 21 decision did not preclude a motion for particulars.

The court held that the plaintiff's written responses combined with oral clarifications provided during the hearing sufficiently answered the defendants' demands.

The plaintiff was ordered to provide the oral particulars in writing within 20 days.