Robert E. Charney

The appellants' home was destroyed by fire and rebuilt by the respondent contractor, paid through the appellants' insurer.

The final insurance cheque of $24,828.48 was made payable only to the appellants, who kept the funds.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract and won.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding they owed the funds to the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the final payment was intended to cover the respondent's approved final invoice.

The applicant, Sunrise North Senior Living Ltd., brought an urgent application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York to evict a respondent, Rohan Salmon, pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders.

The urgency was predicated on the Sheriff's position that the eviction order would expire on June 1, 2019, a point disputed by Sunrise.

The court, without deciding the expiry issue, renewed the eviction orders for one year to eliminate urgency and transferred the judicial review application to the Divisional Court for a full hearing.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside Minutes of Settlement, seeking a reduction in s. 7 expenses, disclosure of the applicant's new spouse's financial records, and retroactive repayment of s. 7 expenses already paid.

The respondent argued he signed the Minutes under duress and due to depression, not intending to be bound, and also claimed non-disclosure of the applicant's new partner's finances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate grounds under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the domestic contract, as the alleged duress did not meet the legal threshold and the non-disclosure claim was precluded by a prior consent order.

This case involved a real estate brokerage's claim for a $36,000 commission from property purchasers.

The court found that the brokerage, York National Realty Inc., had repudiated its Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) with the purchasers by presenting contradictory Confirmation of Cooperation and Representation (CCR) forms that stated it was only providing customer service to the buyers while representing the seller.

Furthermore, the brokerage breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material facts, including the fact that the buyers would be responsible for the commission and the familial relationship between the brokerage owner and the seller, prior to the final Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action for commission and awarded costs to the defendants.

The defendant, Pankaj Bedi, was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and possession charges.

The court conditionally stayed fentanyl trafficking charges based on the Kienapple principle, as the Crown did not provide evidence of the quantity of fentanyl or the accused's knowledge of its presence.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of heroin and the presence of fentanyl as an inherent danger, and mitigating factors such as the accused's remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and compliance with bail conditions.

Credit was given for pre-trial custody and house arrest.

The defendant was sentenced to four years in the penitentiary for trafficking heroin, reduced to an effective sentence of 44 months after credit for pre-trial custody and house arrest.

The Estate Trustees moved for court approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Minutes of Settlement (MOS), and to enforce the MOU against a beneficiary.

The court found that the beneficiary's consent to the MOU was conditional on obtaining independent legal advice, which was subsequently withdrawn.

The MOS, negotiated without all parties, contained terms significantly different from the MOU.

The court ruled that the MOU was void due to the withdrawal of conditional consent, and the MOS could not be approved as it was not agreed to by all parties and contained inconsistent terms.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were directed to update estate information for further proceedings.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding it only $660 of a $9,905 claim for cleaning and repair costs against former tenants.

The Deputy Judge had discounted the landlord's primary evidence, an invoice from a non-arm's length company owned by the landlord's spouse, finding it unreliable and inflated.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the factual findings and rejected the landlord's claim of judicial bias.

However, the court found the Deputy Judge erred in law by applying section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act (abandoned property) instead of section 41 (vacated property) to the disposal of outdoor furniture.

The appeal was allowed in part, increasing the judgment by $120 to $780.

The plaintiff purchaser sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The transaction failed to close because the defendant vendor's parents registered a caution on title, claiming the vendor held the property in trust for them.

The court found that the parents had gifted the property to the vendor, rebutting the presumption of resulting trust.

Alternatively, the court held that under the Land Titles Act, the registered owner had the right to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser for value regardless of any unregistered trust interest.

The parents' claim was dismissed and the cautions were ordered deleted.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude evidence obtained during a strip search, alleging excessive force and improper conduct.

The court found that while the applicant was briefly completely undressed, a minor deviation from *Golden* guidelines, the force used was the minimum necessary given the applicant's non-compliance and safety concerns.

The application was dismissed as no Charter infringement was found.

Jacinda Hudson was convicted by a jury of importing fentanyl and possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the devastating impact of fentanyl, and the offender's personal circumstances, including her lack of criminal record and potential for rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10-12 years, while the defence proposed 6-8 years.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The third party, Huronia Landscaping, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third party claim against it by the defendant, Aerarium Development Corporation Limited, in a personal injury action.

The plaintiff's claim stemmed from a slip and fall on stairs.

The central issues were the precise date of the accident relative to the date of repairs performed by Huronia, and the quality of those repairs.

The court found that regardless of whether the accident occurred before the repairs (September 19, 2013) or after (September 27, 2013), Huronia could not be held liable.

If before, the repairs had not yet taken place.

If after, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the repairs were properly made and the stairs were in good condition post-repair.

The court also addressed the defendant's argument that a jury notice precluded summary judgment, affirming that it does not.

The motion for summary judgment was allowed, and the third party claim against Huronia was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when she tripped on a dumbbell during an exercise class at the defendant's gym.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff signed a membership agreement with an exclusion of liability clause and that there was no negligence.

The court found the exclusion clause was not binding because the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to bring it to the plaintiff's attention under s. 5(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no negligence by the defendant, as the risk of a round dumbbell rolling was obvious and required no warning.

The court also ruled the plaintiff's expert evidence inadmissible.

The applicant mother sought an order increasing child support in accordance with the respondent father’s income and the Canada Child Support Guidelines (CSG), and to require the father to pay s. 7 expenses.

The respondent father cross-moved to reduce child support based on undue hardship due to supporting a second family in El Salvador and to change custody to joint custody.

The court granted the mother's request for increased child support, including retroactive arrears, and ordered the father to pay 60% of future reasonable s. 7 expenses for music and dance.

However, the court denied retroactive s. 7 expenses due to the mother's failure to consult and provide timely receipts, and rejected the father's claim for undue hardship, emphasizing that voluntary support for a second family without a legal duty does not qualify.

The father's cross-motion for joint custody was also dismissed.

The defendants moved to discharge a construction lien and vacate the certificate of action registered by the plaintiff, Brock Contracting, arguing that the plaintiff corporation did not contract with them or supply services, and thus lacked lien rights.

The plaintiff cross-moved to amend its statement of claim to reflect its full corporate name and add Liza Zollner as a plaintiff.

The court found that lien rights must be assigned in writing under s. 73 of the Construction Act and that the corporation, being a separate legal entity, did not possess the original lien rights.

The court also determined that the error was not a minor irregularity curable under s. 6 of the Act, as it involved the wrong entity registering the lien, not merely a misnomer.

The defendants' motion to discharge the lien was granted, while the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the statement of claim was granted by consent.

The plaintiff, a former Service Advisor at a Canadian Tire store, sued his former employer and others for wrongful dismissal, malicious prosecution, defamation, and other torts after he was fired and arrested for allegedly installing KGB spyware on his manager's computer.

The plaintiff claimed he was framed by the defendants either because he refused to 'upsell' or as a decoy for a separate credit card pin pad fraud.

The court rejected the plaintiff's conspiracy theories, finding that the employer proved on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff installed the spyware, which constituted just cause for dismissal.

The court also dismissed all tort claims, finding the defendants had reasonable grounds to call the police, the police independently decided to lay charges, and the defendants' conduct was not malicious, outrageous, or defamatory.

The plaintiff, Planet Paper Box Group Inc., sought to extend an ex parte interim injunction against its former sales representative, Mary McEwan, to restrain her from contacting customers and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the initial ex parte motion was not urgent and that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, particularly regarding the source of its information and the defendant's actual employer.

The court also ruled that the affidavit evidence based on information and belief was inadmissible due to the lack of specified sources, thereby eroding the evidentiary basis for the injunction.

Hazare Roman was initially charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for trafficking.

The fentanyl charge was dismissed via a directed verdict.

Roman subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for trafficking.

The Crown and defence made a joint submission for a 9-month prison sentence plus probation, agreeing on 20 days credit for pre-trial custody.

They disagreed on the credit for 4 months of house arrest and 18 months of curfew.

The court accepted the 9-month sentence, granting an additional 2 months and 10 days credit for the house arrest period (totaling 3 months credit), resulting in a 6-month custodial sentence, followed by one year probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The plaintiff, 1806700 Ontario Inc., initiated an action in Newmarket alleging fraud related to a third mortgage, seeking damages for litigation costs incurred in prior Brampton and Toronto proceedings.

The Khan defendants and Hameed defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff cross-moved to amend its claim.

The court found the claim against the Hameed defendants was an impermissible collateral attack on previous costs rulings and barred by absolute privilege, striking it without leave.

The claim against the Khan defendants also suffered from these defects, but the court granted leave to amend due to the Khan defendants having put the third mortgage's validity in issue in a separate Toronto action.

The court also ordered the Newmarket and Toronto actions transferred to Oshawa due to improper commencement location and stayed the Newmarket action pending the final determination of the Brampton proceedings, emphasizing the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiff, Car-Wal Garage Doors Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, On Track Door Systems Canada Inc., from using the trade name "On Track" and the domain name "ontrackdoorsystems.ca".

The plaintiff alleged the defendant's actions constituted passing off, causing confusion and damaging goodwill, particularly after the expiry of a previous licence agreement.

The defendant cross-moved to strike the claim, arguing res judicata or abuse of process.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding passing off, a risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and market share, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

A limited injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from using "On Track" in its name except for "On Track Door Systems Grey Bruce Inc." and from using the specified domain name.

The plaintiff, CIBC Mortgages Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Lyle Derlago, seeking payment for amounts owing under a mortgage for which the defendant acted as guarantor.

The defendant argued that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, specifically concerning the plaintiff's alleged negligence in securing and selling the mortgaged property after default, which he claimed reduced its value.

The court found that the defendant's contractual obligation as guarantor was enforceable independently of the plaintiff's actions regarding the property sale.

The court held that the alleged negligence and improvident sale claims were premature as the property had not yet been sold, and such claims could be pursued later.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.