Robert E. Charney

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.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to set aside an interlocutory injunction and terminate a commercial lease based on alleged deficiencies in the tenant's insurance coverage.

The tenant had been granted an interlocutory injunction in April 2025 preventing lease termination, subject to compliance with insurance requirements within 20 days of receiving a Notice of Default.

The landlord served a Notice of Default identifying thirteen alleged deficiencies.

By the time of the motion hearing, the parties had resolved most issues, but the landlord continued to assert five deficiencies remained.

The court reviewed the insurance certificate and found that the tenant had substantially complied with all insurance requirements of the lease.

The motion was dismissed.

The court considered whether Blaney McMurtry LLP, former counsel for the defendants, was entitled to a declaration or an equitable mortgage over the defendant’s property for unpaid legal fees, based on a prior consent order.

The court found that the consent order did not create an equitable mortgage in favour of Blaney, as the intention was for a bank to be the secured creditor, not Blaney.

The motion was dismissed.

The Bank of Montreal sought a declaration that its mortgage on a property in Oshawa was entitled to first priority over a competing mortgage registered by 10655252 Canada Corporation, relying on the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

The court found that BMO’s funds were used to pay out the prior first mortgage (CIBC), and that all parties intended BMO to have first priority.

Due to the solicitor’s negligence, the BMO mortgage was not registered first, but the court exercised its discretion to grant equitable subrogation, giving BMO first priority to the extent of the CIBC mortgage.

The plaintiff, Tianyu Li, brought a motion for summary judgment in an oppression action under the Ontario and Canada Business Corporations Acts, seeking $760,000 against the defendants, who were involved in the operation and sale of two supermarkets.

The court found that there were significant factual disputes, a voluminous record, and a lack of expert evidence, making the matter unsuitable for summary judgment.

The motion was dismissed and the action, along with the defendants’ counterclaim, was ordered to proceed to trial.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering the return of their deposit for an assignment of a property that was never built.

The defendant was not entitled to retain the deposit or deduct expenses, and the real estate agent (Hometown) was required to return its commission, as the underlying transaction did not close due to the builder's bankruptcy.

The decision turned on the interpretation of the relevant agreements and the application of contract law principles.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs to enforce personal guarantees and obtain possession and payment under a collateral mortgage, except for the Plaintiffs’ claim for internal collection costs, which was dismissed.

The Defendants argued the property was sold improvidently and challenged the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to internal collection costs.

The court found no triable issue regarding the sale, as the process met the Soundair factors, and dismissed the claim for collection costs due to lack of evidence and non-compliance with the contract’s requirements.

The applicant, Barry Taylor, brought an application claiming he was constructively dismissed when his employer, Salytics Inc., placed him on a temporary lay-off.

He argued that the temporary lay-off provision in his employment contract was void because other termination clauses in the agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that a temporary lay-off provision is not a termination provision and is not invalidated by other unlawful termination clauses.

Consequently, the lay-off was contractually authorized and did not constitute constructive dismissal.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death following a fatal head-on collision.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unlawful search and seizure regarding blood samples taken at the hospital.

The Crown brought a voluntariness application regarding statements the accused made to a paramedic and police officers.

The court found the paramedic was not a person in authority and the statements to police were voluntary.

The court also held the accused was not detained prior to his formal arrest and the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him and demand a blood sample based on the totality of the circumstances.

The Charter application was dismissed and the statements were ruled admissible.

The applicant, 961838 Ontario Ltd. o/a MacGyver Autobody & Collision, sought a declaration of its right to a five-year renewal of its commercial lease with the respondents.

The respondents argued the applicant was in default and not entitled to renewal.

The court found that the applicant was not in default regarding signage or rent increase, and, in any event, would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The applicant was granted the right to a five-year renewal under the lease.

The court granted the Charter application of Malamin Marong, excluding evidence of a loaded prohibited firearm and cocaine found during a vehicle search.

The court found that the police lacked grounds for the initial traffic stop and subsequent search under the Cannabis Control Act, and that the officer's evidence was unreliable and contradicted by other evidence.

The breaches of Charter sections 8 and 9 were serious, and the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to maintain the integrity of the justice system, despite the reliability and importance of the evidence to the Crown's case.

Hussein Harb was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping and attempted extortion of Mohammad Algunaid, related to a scheme to recover money lost in a Ponzi scheme.

The court considered the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principle of parity, noting that Harb played a lesser role than his co-accused, Kozak, who inflicted the violence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, with strict house arrest and ancillary orders, finding this fit and proportionate given Harb’s lesser culpability and lack of prior record.

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Gaurav Tewari, should be permitted to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against multiple defendants, given his outstanding costs orders from previous litigation.

The court found that it would be unfair to allow further motions until the costs orders were satisfied, despite the plaintiff's claims of significant assets.

The motion was not permitted to proceed at this time.

The plaintiff, Datamy Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Ka-Hang Yung and Vivien Yung, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) relating to a residential property.

The defendants failed to pay a second deposit of $140,000 as required by the APS.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for the unpaid deposit, rejecting the defendants’ arguments for relief from forfeiture and finding the deposit amount reasonable.

Alternatively, the court calculated damages based on the difference in sale price and related costs, but ultimately awarded the full unpaid deposit.

The plaintiff, Liberty Tax Service, Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from violating post-termination non-compete and non-solicitation obligations under a franchise agreement, and to compel the return of client records.

The court found a strong prima facie case of competition but not of solicitation, and ordered the return of documents, but declined to grant an interlocutory injunction due to the lateness in the tax season and the potential prejudice to innocent clients.

The plaintiffs sought leave under Rules 53.03(4) and 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to deliver two further expert reports—an orthopaedic assessment and a future care cost report—after the pre-trial conference had been completed.

The court reviewed the applicable rules and relevant case law, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the late delivery of both reports.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant, represented by his litigation guardian, brought two applications to pass over himself and the respondent as estate trustees of their deceased parents' estates and to appoint a professional succeeding estate trustee.

The respondent consented to the appointment of the succeeding estate trustee at the hearing.

The applicant also sought a declaration that a codicil to the father's will was sufficiently proved by an affidavit of execution from a witness present at its signing, as the attesting witnesses could not be located.

The court granted the applications, declaring the codicil's execution sufficiently proved, ordering the respondent to provide an informal accounting, and awarding costs on a full indemnity basis.

The Applicant, NP Health Clinic Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondent, 2456192 Ontario Inc., from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it for alleged failure to obtain adequate liability insurance as required by the lease.

The court found that the Landlord’s Notice of Default did not comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act because it failed to specify the particular deficiencies in the Tenant’s insurance.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, subject to the Landlord serving a compliant Notice of Default and the Tenant being given an opportunity to remedy any specified deficiencies.

The applicant, Gaetano Di Blasi, sought a declaration that his property in Aurora, Ontario, was protected as an existing non-conforming use, allowing him to continue using it for outdoor storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment, business operations, storage of heavy trucks, and trailers.

The Town of Aurora opposed all uses except residential.

The court reviewed the history of zoning, prior proceedings, and the legal test for non-conforming use, ultimately finding that the relevant date for establishing legal non-conforming use was September 8, 1970, and that the applicant failed to prove the claimed uses were legal and continuous from that date.

The application was dismissed, and costs awarded to the Town.

The court considered motions under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to reconsider or amend a judgment following a five-day trial in which both parties were self-represented.

The defendant, Aaron Topple, sought reconsideration on the basis of alleged misapprehension of evidence and contract interpretation, while the plaintiff, Adam Drew, sought recalculation of damages.

The court reviewed the narrow circumstances in which reconsideration is permitted, emphasizing the finality of judgments and the high threshold for reopening a case.

Both motions were dismissed.

The court also addressed costs, awarding the plaintiffs $70,000 on a partial indemnity basis.