Robert F. Goldstein

Following earlier reasons finding a binding agreement and liability for breach, the court addressed the remaining issue of damages concerning the valuation of shares under a draft partnership agreement.

The dispute centred on the meaning of “fair market value” and whether “earnings” in the contractual formula referred to gross commissions or net earnings after expenses.

The court held that, absent an express contractual definition, the traditional meaning of fair market value—an arm’s length price in the open market—should apply.

Applying principles of implied terms and contractual interpretation, the court concluded that earnings should be interpreted as net earnings rather than gross commissions to give business efficacy to the agreement.

Damages were therefore calculated based on net earnings.

Following dismissal of a counterclaim after a five‑day trial, the successful defendants by counterclaim sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self‑represented counterclaimant made no submissions on costs despite being given multiple opportunities.

Applying the principle that costs should generally follow the event and must be fair and reasonable, the court found no reason to depart from the “loser pays” rule, particularly where the counterclaim lacked merit and caused unnecessary delay.

The court accepted the reasonableness of the hours claimed by counsel given the length of the trial and circumstances, including wasted court time caused by adjournments sought by the counterclaimant.

Costs were awarded to both successful parties on a partial indemnity basis.

Following dismissal of a motion for summary judgment arising from claims connected to a Ponzi scheme, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty of the factual circumstances, but the court held that novelty alone does not justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The defendants sought either substantial indemnity or partial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs’ litigation strategy unsuccessful but not unreasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each defendant, with modest reductions applied to certain claimed amounts.

Following the dismissal of an appeal from a decision of a Master, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondents sought $20,540.16 on a partial indemnity basis, while the appellant argued that $7,500 inclusive of fees, taxes, and disbursements would be reasonable.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the importance of the issues, the potential financial stakes, the complexity of the appeal, and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

Although the court found that some of the respondents’ docketed time appeared excessive, it accepted that substantial preparation was justified given the stakes and the commercial context.

The court fixed costs at $16,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Following the granting of a summary judgment motion in favour of the defendants in a medical negligence action, the court considered the defendants’ request for costs against the remaining plaintiffs.

The defendants sought modest costs despite incurring substantially higher legal fees and disbursements, largely related to expert reports.

The plaintiffs made no submissions on the costs issue despite having the opportunity to do so.

The court found the defendants’ request reasonable, particularly given conduct by the responding party that had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to each of the two defendants seeking costs.

Commercial dispute arising from an insurance brokerage joining a broker network.

The plaintiff alleged that an enforceable agreement existed under which it would receive a 25% ownership interest in the brokerage and 7.5% of commissions in exchange for services and access to insurance markets and systems.

The defendants argued that no binding agreement was formed because formal documents were never signed.

The court held that the parties reached agreement on essential terms and manifested an intention to be bound through conduct, including issuance of shares, regulatory arrangements, and operational participation in the network.

The defendants repudiated the agreement, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract and additional recovery on a quantum meruit basis for a post-repudiation period.

A franchisee sought rescission of a franchise agreement and damages under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), alleging inadequate disclosure by the franchisor in connection with the purchase of an existing franchise from a third party.

The franchisor argued that the statutory disclosure obligation did not apply because the grant of the franchise was not effected by or through the franchisor.

The court held that determining whether the statutory exemption applied depended on factual findings and credibility assessments regarding the franchisor’s level of involvement in the resale transaction and the adequacy of disclosure.

Given these disputed material facts, the application procedure was inappropriate.

The court therefore converted the application into an action so that the issues could be resolved at trial.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude 25.3 grams of cocaine found in his underwear during a strip search at a police station.

The accused was initially arrested during a high-risk takedown following a 'gun call' from a citizen.

A search incident to arrest revealed marijuana and cash, leading to drug charges and the subsequent strip search.

The accused argued the police only had grounds for an investigative detention and exceeded their authority by searching his pockets.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the detailed citizen complaint, and alternatively, that a pocket search would have been justified during an investigative detention given the safety concerns.

The court also held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim in a franchise dispute.

In an earlier endorsement, the court struck certain portions while permitting others to proceed.

This addendum clarified additional paragraphs that the parties had agreed should be struck prior to the motion argument but which were not listed in the original endorsement.

The struck portions related to unsupported claims against individual defendants, including negligence, breach of contract, statutory duties under franchise legislation, and claims for injunctive relief and lost opportunity damages.

The court confirmed that the listed portions of the Statement of Claim were struck in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and threatening damage to property following an altercation with a close friend.

The victim suffered a broken orbital bone.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months incarceration, while the defence sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence, noting the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and potential immigration consequences as a permanent resident.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence (65 days net after pre-sentence credit) and one year of probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's strong rehabilitative prospects and the victim's desire for reconciliation.

The plaintiffs and defendants were all victims of a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by an investment advisor.

The plaintiffs, who were late entrants to the scheme, provided bank drafts directly payable to the defendants, who were early entrants, under the mistaken belief they were investing in legitimate bridge financing.

When the scheme collapsed, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for the return of their money, alleging unjust enrichment and mistake of fact.

The plaintiffs brought a consolidated motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the defendants were unjustly enriched or if the payments were made under a mistake of fact, and noting that the novel legal issues and ongoing bankruptcy proceedings required a full trial.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim in a franchise dispute.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of a Cora restaurant, alleged misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of the Arthur Wishart Act after the franchisor opened another location nearby.

The court struck the breach of contract and negligence claims without leave to amend, finding they contradicted the express terms of the franchise agreement which granted no exclusive territory.

The misrepresentation claims were struck with leave to amend for lack of particularity.

The claims under the Arthur Wishart Act and for injunctive relief were allowed to proceed.

The offender was convicted of carrying a loaded handgun in downtown Toronto.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to six years, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of three years.

The court considered the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts as mitigating factors, and the carrying of a loaded weapon in public and breaches of bail as aggravating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to four years' imprisonment and declined to make a DNA order.

The Minister of Finance appealed a master's decision dismissing a motion to renew a writ of execution against an uninsured motorist who had filed a consumer proposal.

The motorist's driver's licence had been subject to suspension under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act for failing to pay a judgment debt arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding an operational conflict between the provincial legislation and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that the provincial scheme was effectively a debt collection mechanism that subverted the federal bankruptcy scheme and the 'fresh start' principle, rendering the provincial provision inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.

Appeal from a Master’s order dismissing a motion to consolidate or have five related estate, trust, negligence, and third-party proceedings heard together under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants argued the Master misapplied Rule 6, lacked jurisdiction findings, and failed to grant ancillary relief including lifting a stay.

The court held the Master properly exercised her discretion, correctly considered the balance of convenience, and reasonably concluded that consolidating the proceedings would unfairly burden non-family parties with minimal benefit.

The court further held the Master correctly determined that certain requested relief, including effectively converting an application to an action and transferring estate matters, fell outside her jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful appeal that set aside an arbitrator’s decision, the court addressed the issue of costs between two insurers.

The applicant sought $15,587.26 in partial indemnity costs, arguing that the appeal involved complex statutory interpretation within the regulated insurance industry and required substantial legal analysis.

The respondent argued that the amount was excessive because much of the work had already been completed during the arbitration and that time spent by junior counsel was unnecessary.

Applying the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court found that some of the claimed time, particularly by junior counsel, was excessive but that a meaningful award was still warranted given the sophistication of the parties and the nature of the dispute.

Costs were fixed at $11,000 inclusive of fees and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of appeals from a master's decision rejecting claims of litigation privilege, the court determined costs.

The responding parties sought partial indemnity costs reflecting significant legal work and extensive materials filed on the appeal.

The court applied the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that costs must be fair and reasonable and should reflect the parties’ reasonable expectations.

The court rejected arguments that the large volume of materials filed by the appellant should influence the award and noted that the appellant advanced an arguable legal position without misconduct.

The court awarded $8,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and tax to each group of respondents.

The accused, a vocal music teacher, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 10‑year‑old student at a school.

The complainant testified to multiple assaults occurring during after‑school detentions in the music room.

The trial judge applied the principles in R. v. W.(D.) and assessed both credibility and reliability of the evidence.

Although the complainant was found credible and clearly traumatized, objective evidence regarding class schedules, the physical layout and accessibility of the classroom, and inaccuracies in the complainant’s recollection raised significant reliability concerns.

These factors created a reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged assaults occurred as described.

The appellant appealed a decision of a Master who declined to proceed with a reference related to a judgment for partition and sale of several apartment properties.

After obtaining the judgment, the appellant privately sold its minority interest to the majority owner outside the reference process and removed the instrument registering the judgment for sale.

The appellant later sought to continue the reference solely to pursue an accounting against the property manager for alleged overcharged management fees.

The court held that the reference was governed by the judgment for sale and that the accounting was merely ancillary to the sale process.

Because the appellant’s private transaction rendered the judgment for sale moot, the Master correctly found that she lacked jurisdiction to continue the reference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondent, a property manager who regularly appeared before the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of landlords, from providing legal services without a licence.

The respondent argued he was entitled to appear as a landlord’s “personal representative” within the definition of “landlord” under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court held that appearing before a tribunal as a paid representative to make submissions and examine witnesses constitutes the provision of legal services requiring a licence under the Law Society Act.

The term “personal representative” in the Residential Tenancies Act was interpreted in its traditional estates law sense and does not include a paid property manager.

A permanent injunction was issued restraining the respondent from providing legal services without a licence.