Renata Kis

The plaintiff, FSA Science and Art Ltd., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant 1004964 Ontario Inc. The defendants, 1004964 Ontario Inc. and Edward Slapsys, brought a cross-motion for costs of the plaintiff's discontinued action.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no genuine issue for trial, as the invoice for assistance services was effectively a penalty and the plaintiff had not received the agreed-upon 20 hours of free assistance.

For the costs motion, the court found the defendants were entitled to partial indemnity costs for the discontinued action, but reduced the requested amount by 50% due to excessive claims and some duplication of effort.

No costs were awarded for the motions themselves due to divided success.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to Lixo Investments Limited and Granite Claims Solutions LP against AACR Inc. o/a Winmar Toronto/Brampton, following a set of three summary judgment motions.

Winmar's motion for summary judgment against all defendants was dismissed, while Granite's and Intact's motions to dismiss Winmar's claim against them were granted.

The court found Winmar acted unreasonably in bringing its summary judgment motion and in responding to Granite's motion.

The request for a Bullock Order and deferral of costs was denied, as these were deemed matters for the trial judge.

All cross-claims were dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff, Winmar, a contractor, brought a motion for summary judgment against the property owner (Lixo), the insurer (Intact), and the insurance adjuster (Granite) for unpaid work following a fire and subsequent flood.

Intact and Granite also brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Winmar's claims against them.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding Winmar's claim against Lixo, particularly concerning the scope of work, the timing of the lien, and the quantum owed, as much of the work was related to a separate flood incident for a tenant (Club V) and not clearly authorized by Lixo.

Winmar's motion against Lixo was dismissed, but the action against Lixo was not dismissed.

The court granted Intact and Granite's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Winmar's claims against them, finding no direct contractual relationship, no benefit gained by them, and no jurisdiction under the Construction Lien Act for claims against non-owners or for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment against them.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing her claims against the respondents.

The central issue was whether the appellant was the sole or majority shareholder of John Bordynuik Inc. of Delaware and therefore entitled to bring claims on behalf of or as an assignee of that company.

The motion judge found that the respondent John Bordynuik was not obliged to give up his shares in the Delaware Company when he purchased his majority interest in JBI Inc. of Nevada.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, accepting her interpretation of the documentary evidence, including an email and share ledger, over the appellant's interpretation of a Settlement Agreement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The applicant brought a motion under the Evidence Act and Canada Evidence Act seeking orders related to a letter rogatory issued in litigation pending before a Utah court.

The motion requested substitution of a new applicant, EdiZONE LLC, and the addition of two individuals as respondents to the Ontario application.

The court held that the substitution of the applicant was unopposed and should be granted.

It further concluded that the presence of the proposed respondents was necessary to enable the application judge to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues related to the letter rogatory request.

The motion to add the proposed respondents was therefore granted, while costs were reserved to the application judge.

The municipality brought a motion seeking appointment as receiver of a property owned by the respondents in order to evict residential tenants and enforce compliance with the Building Code Act after prolonged non‑compliance with court orders.

The respondents had previously been ordered to vacate the building, cease renting residential units, and bring applications before the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate tenancies, but repeatedly failed to comply and continued to collect rent and conduct unauthorized construction.

Evidence showed ongoing building code violations posing health and safety risks to tenants and continued contempt of court orders.

The court found that the respondents had been given numerous opportunities over an extended period to purge their contempt but had failed to bring the property into compliance.

Relying on its jurisdiction under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court appointed the municipality as receiver for the limited purpose of bringing eviction applications and ensuring compliance with safety requirements.

The defendant corporation was charged with unlawfully disposing of oil field fluids in violation of the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act and related regulations.

The Crown sought to admit a Certificate of Analysis from Maxxam Analytics containing chemical analysis results of soil and vegetation samples collected from the defendant's well site.

The defendant objected to admission of the document as hearsay.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility under the business records exception to the hearsay rule under section 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act.

The court found that the Certificate of Analysis met all requirements for admission as a business record and admitted it into evidence.