R. Lee Akazaki

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants for fraud and conversion.

The defendant office manager misappropriated over $1.1 million from the plaintiff's personal bank accounts through e-transfers, cheques, and credit card payments.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff authorized all transactions.

The court found the defendant's evidence entirely lacking in credibility and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

The court awarded compensatory damages for fraud and conversion, punitive damages, and ordered a reference to determine the defendant's husband's liability for knowing receipt of stolen funds.

A commercial tenancy dispute concerning a restaurant lease that expired on December 12, 2024.

The tenant failed to exercise a contractual renewal option by the required deadline of six months prior to expiry (June 2024).

The tenant sought relief from forfeiture to compel renewal of the lease for another five years.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tenant made no diligent efforts to comply with the renewal option and failed to provide written notice as required by the lease.

The court held that relief from forfeiture is not available where the loss of the lease is consequential to the tenant's own failure to exercise contractual rights.

A residential tenant sued his landlord and pest control contractor for $600,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages arising from a bedbug infestation and alleged negligent application of insecticide.

The tenant also claimed $6,000 for an alleged unlawful security deposit and $7,170.01 for hotel stays and cleaning services.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for claims under $35,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the tenant's maximum recoverable damages could not exceed the LTB's monetary jurisdiction.

This decision addresses motions for summary judgment in three related product liability actions concerning polypropylene mesh used in hernia repair surgeries.

The plaintiffs, having suffered complications and undergone further surgeries, sued the manufacturer years after the expiry of the basic two-year limitation period.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their claims were not reasonably discoverable within the limitation period, emphasizing the requirement of reasonable diligence and the inability to rely on a "eureka moment" or the discovery of a law firm's list to toll the limitation period.

All three actions were dismissed as statute-barred.

The court considered whether to stay Bombardier Inc.'s Ontario action against Alstom Rail Sweden AB for a tax loss purchase price adjustment, pending arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce.

The dispute centered on whether the claim fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement in a 2020 share purchase agreement, or was carved out by a prior 2017 agreement that conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ontario courts.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., the court found Alstom Sweden had established an arguable case that the dispute was subject to arbitration and stayed the action.

The court found that King Ursa Inc. constructively dismissed Joanna S. McFarlane by demoting her and reducing her salary after her return from maternity leave.

The employer failed to prove that McFarlane did not mitigate her damages.

The court awarded her twelve months’ notice, calculated damages, and moral damages for the insensitive handling of her employment, but declined to find discrimination or award punitive damages.

The court found the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) in contempt of court for circumventing a court order prohibiting it from licensing architectural technologists except as authorized by regulation.

After a prior order voided technologist licences, the OAA issued architect licences to technologists with the same practice restrictions as the banned licences, using a statutory committee process.

The court held this was a breach of both the letter and spirit of the order, as the process was a disguised continuation of the prohibited policy.

The decision reviews the statutory context, the events after the order, and the legal test for contempt, concluding that the OAA intentionally disobeyed the order.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of World Financial Solutions Inc. for possession and sale of a Toronto property under a collateral mortgage, dismissing the defences, counterclaim, and third party claims of 2573138 Ontario Ltd. and Marguerite Alfred.

The court found the mortgage was in default, rejected arguments of co-venturer status, conspiracy, and improper sale, and ordered a reference for accounting of sale proceeds.

The decision clarifies the application of summary judgment principles in mortgage enforcement and the limits of technical and equitable defences.

The court held that Richard Turcotte was constructively dismissed by Grenville Management Inc. when he was unilaterally laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the employment agreement did not permit such a layoff without his consent.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that pandemic-related regulations suspended the right to claim constructive dismissal at common law.

Turcotte was awarded 16 months’ pay in lieu of notice, with no punitive or moral damages, as the employer’s conduct, while problematic, did not meet the threshold for such awards.

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt by the defendants, who breached a Mareva order by failing to disclose real property in Spain and denying ownership under oath.

The court finds that the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from dealing with the Spanish property and to require that net rental income from the property be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until personal liability is determined.

The court also awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, with a set-off for costs on the motion to set aside the Mareva injunction.

This decision concerns a dispute between Sound Insurance Services Inc. and Chris Hossein, a former insurance producer, and his new employer, Greensides & Breen Insurance Brokers Limited.

The case addresses breach of contract, inducement of breach, breach of confidence, and civil conspiracy arising from the failed transfer of a book of business.

The court found Mr. Hossein liable for breach of contract and breach of confidence, and Greensides liable for inducing the breach.

Damages were assessed at $350,000, plus interest and costs.

The court considered whether an insurer could deny a life insurance claim based on a change in insurability between application and policy delivery, even if the change was unknown to both parties, and whether such a denial could occur beyond the two-year incontestability period in the Insurance Act.

The court held that section 180(1)(c) of the Insurance Act does not permit an insurer to void a policy for an undisclosed change in insurability beyond the two-year period set by section 184(2).

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, finding the insurance was in effect at the time of death.

The court found that William Williamson was wrongfully dismissed by Brandt Tractor Inc. after 18 years of service.

The employer failed to prove just cause for dismissal, relying on hearsay evidence regarding a customer complaint.

The court awarded damages based on a 17-month notice period and dismissed the claim for punitive damages, finding no egregious conduct beyond the statutory breach.

The court considered a dispute between neighbouring commercial property owners after repeated basement flooding at 1330 Gerrard Inc., attributed to a rain garden installed by Riverdale Immigrant Women Enterprises.

The court found that the rain garden, as constructed and maintained, was the proximate cause of the flooding and ordered its removal and replacement with a conventional drainpipe.

The court also addressed the application of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, finding strict liability appropriate due to the non-natural use of land.

The court declined to order further invasive remedies, adopting a "wait and see" approach regarding potential structural damage.

The court found that Empire Steel Inc. breached its sublease with AZZ Galvanizing Canada Limited by overcharging for hydro, contrary to the contractual requirement to pass on only the actual cost of utilities.

Empire’s attempt to justify the overcharges by reference to alternative agreements and a retroactive TMI reconciliation was rejected as lacking credibility and good faith.

The court awarded AZZ $418,876 for hydro overcharges, subject to a $20,000 set-off for outdoor storage, and dismissed all other counterclaims and crossclaims.

The plaintiff succeeded in a libel action arising from newspaper articles and Facebook posts portraying her as a scammer who defrauded migrant workers of millions of dollars.

The court held that the publications were plainly defamatory and that the defendants failed to establish justification, responsible communication, fair comment, or statutory privilege.

The court also rejected reliance on Small Claims Court judgments as proving the sting of the allegations, and held that the Libel and Slander Act barred only the 2020 newspaper publications, not the timely 2022 article or personal social media republications.

General damages of $150,000 and punitive damages of $100,000 were awarded.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.

This decision concerns an oppression remedy application and counterapplication under section 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The dispute is between two siblings, Asanka and Shamali, regarding the beneficial ownership and management of a small convenience store business operated through 1000635690 Ontario Inc. The court finds that both parties have reasonable expectations and have, in different ways, been oppressed by the other’s conduct.

The court orders a collaborative business arrangement until the expiry of the lease, after which Asanka will acquire full ownership, and profits will be distributed according to a specified formula.

The court found that York Region Condominium Corporation No. 664 had oppressed unit owner Joshua Frankel by breaching a settlement agreement to resolve a persistent noise issue in his unit.

The court held that the condominium’s failure to install the agreed-upon pumps, instead opting for a cheaper alternative that did not resolve the problem, constituted unfair disregard of Frankel’s interests under section 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court ordered the condominium to take all necessary measures to attenuate the noise and awarded Frankel $32,500 in compensation for the oppression, as well as $30,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a personal injury action against the estate of a deceased driver who caused a multi-vehicle collision after suffering a sudden seizure.

The defendant estate moved for summary judgment, arguing the collision was an inevitable accident caused by a sudden medical emergency.

The court found that the driver had followed all medical advice, complied with his medication regimen, and had no reason to anticipate the seizure.

Consequently, the court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action, holding that the driver met the standard of reasonable care.