Robert F. Goldstein

The defendant bank moved for summary judgment dismissing an action by three corporate borrowers arising from the internal transfer of their delinquent loans to the bank's Special Accounts department.

The plaintiffs alleged fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, lost business opportunities, and sought $15 million in general damages plus $2 million in punitive damages.

The court held the motion record permitted a full appreciation of the evidence, found that the transfer did not alter the parties' legal relationships, that any changed loan terms arose from admitted defaults and subsequent renegotiation, and that no fiduciary relationship or compensable damages were established.

The court also held the claim was barred under the two-year limitation period because the plaintiffs knew of the transfer in 2006, or at the latest by May 2007.

An appeal from a master's order compelling a non-party witness to answer questions and produce documents on an examination under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The examination related to efforts to enforce a judgment against a dissolved corporation by seeking relief against an alleged corporate successor.

The appellant argued the trial judge was functus and that the questions were irrelevant because the court lacked jurisdiction to vary the judgment.

The court held that the requested questions were relevant to a pending motion seeking enforcement and potential relief under ss. 242 and 243 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act concerning property of dissolved corporations and shareholder liability.

The master's decision was entitled to deference and disclosed no error of law.

The plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault and excessive force by police officers during an arrest that resulted in a shoulder injury.

The plaintiff conceded that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest but argued that the arresting officer used excessive force.

The court found that the officer used only a simple grab to pull the plaintiff away from discarded drugs and another suspect, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure his shoulder.

Applying principles under s. 25 of the Criminal Code and relevant case law on justified use of force, the court held that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The action for damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff helicopter services provider brought a motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid invoices under a services agreement for helicopter transportation at a remote mining exploration site.

The defendant mining company disputed portions of the invoiced charges and asserted a counterclaim alleging damages arising from the conduct of a pilot, including events affecting relations with a local community and allegedly unnecessary flight charges.

The court considered Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “full appreciation” test from Combined Air Mechanical v. Flesch.

The court held that the factual disputes, including credibility issues and the potential application of equitable set‑off, were sufficiently intertwined with the plaintiff’s claim that they required resolution at trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

The purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment seeking return of a $100,000 deposit paid under an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property after the transaction failed to close.

The vendor refused to close unless the purchaser agreed to additional conditions concerning demolition or renovation that were not contained in the agreement.

The court found the vendor’s conduct constituted anticipatory breach and repudiation of the agreement.

The purchaser was therefore entitled to recover the deposit.

In any event, even if the purchaser had repudiated the agreement, the court would grant equitable relief from forfeiture because the vendor resold the property at a significantly higher price and suffered no financial loss.

The defendants moved to strike several corporate defendants from a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against them.

The plaintiff alleged she was employed by a group of related corporations operating collectively and that they wrongfully dismissed her and withheld personal property.

Applying the test for striking pleadings, the court held that the pleadings and incorporated documents sufficiently alleged a common employer relationship among the corporate defendants.

It was not plain and obvious that the claim against the additional defendants had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed.

The moving party sought judgment under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure enforcing the terms of an alleged settlement offer.

The dispute arose after the parties exchanged an offer and acceptance referring to an action number that no longer existed due to a prior consolidation order.

The court considered principles of contractual interpretation governing settlement agreements and concluded that the offer was ambiguous and referred to a nullity.

Extrinsic evidence demonstrated that the parties had differing understandings of what was being settled and were not ad idem.

As a result, no enforceable settlement existed and the motion for judgment was dismissed.

An insurer appealed an arbitrator’s ruling in a statutory accident benefits priority dispute under s. 268 of the Insurance Act and Ontario Regulation 283/95.

The arbitrator held that the respondent insurer was not an “insurer” for purposes of the scheme because there was no nexus between the accident victim and the respondent’s optional insurance policy offered through a rental car company.

The court applied the correctness standard of review and held the arbitrator erred by applying a remoteness analysis rather than the proper “arbitrariness” nexus test developed in the case law.

Even though the accident victim declined the optional policy, the connection through the rental vehicle and the insurer’s optional coverage was sufficient to establish a non-arbitrary nexus triggering the statutory scheme.

The arbitrator’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted for determination of the remaining priority dispute issues.

A land developer sought a declaration that a municipality could not impose future development charges on undeveloped land because of a prior development agreement from 1980.

The municipality refused to recognize a credit for development charges previously paid, and the developer’s appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board was dismissed as out of time under Ontario Regulation 82/98.

The court held that the regulation required developers to apply for recognition of development charge credits before the October 31, 1999 sunset deadline.

Paragraph 17.2 of the regulation did not create a separate process for resolving conflicts between development agreements and development charge by-laws.

The application was also barred by issue estoppel because the same issue had been determined by the tribunal.

The plaintiffs were defrauded of $1.3 million by a promoter who instructed them to deposit funds into a law firm's trust account.

The funds were subsequently disbursed on the promoter's instructions.

The plaintiffs sued the law firm and the responsible lawyer for negligence and breach of trust.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lawyers owed no duty of care to the non-client plaintiffs, as there was no proximity and the plaintiffs' reliance was not reasonable.

The court also found no fiduciary duty existed.

Following dismissal of an appeal from an arbitrator’s decision, the successful party sought full indemnity costs on the basis that the appeal was hopeless and should never have been brought.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that full indemnity costs require reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct.

The court found that although the appellant was unsuccessful, the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious and counsel’s conduct was professional.

The request for full indemnity costs was therefore rejected.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,492.46 were awarded as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant insurer appealed an arbitrator’s decision interpreting the phrase “gross vehicle weight” in Ontario Regulation 664 under the Insurance Act for purposes of the statutory accident benefits loss transfer scheme.

The arbitrator held that “gross vehicle weight” referred to the manufacturer’s capacity weight of the vehicle rather than its actual weight at the time of the accident.

The court reviewed the interpretation on a correctness standard and examined statutory context and prior authority, including Royal Insurance Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. The court concluded that the term refers to the actual combined weight of the vehicle and load rather than the vehicle’s rated capacity.

The arbitrator erred in law by failing to follow binding authority and by adopting the capacity-weight approach.

Following dismissal of a motion to amend the statement of claim, the court determined costs.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs totalling $14,420.17 for preparation, cross‑examination attendance, and the motion hearing.

The opposing party argued the amount was excessive given the simplicity of the motion and the use of two counsel.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court held that the requested amount was fair and reasonable given the complexity arising from the long history of the 22‑year litigation and the volume of material involved.

Costs of $14,420.17 were awarded with 120 days permitted for payment.

Following a successful motion dismissing the action, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $25,292.42.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to $5,000, asserting that many steps taken by the defendant were unnecessary and that the governing jurisdictional authority evolved after the action commenced.

The court applied 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.

Considering the complexity of the motion, the conduct of counsel during cross-examinations, and the fact that the motion resolved the entire action, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 payable to the successful defendant.

The plaintiff corporation sued the provincial government for $2.25 billion after the government imposed a moratorium on offshore wind farm development in Lake Ontario.

The government moved under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the moratorium constituted a core policy decision grounded in public policy considerations and therefore could not ground liability in tort.

Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, expropriation, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, misfeasance in public office, and intentional infliction of economic harm were all found to be inadequately pleaded or legally unsustainable.

The statement of claim was struck and the action dismissed without leave to amend.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged retaliation, defamation, statutory breaches, and breach of an implied employment contract following a workplace incident while placed through a temporary employment agency.

The court held that alleged breaches of regulatory statutes such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Employment Standards Act do not independently create civil causes of action absent express statutory authorization.

The pleading also failed to properly plead defamation and could not support an implied employment contract claim against the defendant because the plaintiff’s employer was the temporary help agency.

The court found the allegations speculative and unsupported by facts and struck the claim, dismissing the action.

A jockey brought a civil action alleging malicious prosecution against racing stewards and the provincial racing regulator after his one‑year suspension for failing to persevere with his mount was overturned on appeal by the regulator.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court held that issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the action because the propriety of the stewards’ investigation and their alleged malice had already been addressed in a full de novo hearing before the regulatory tribunal.

In any event, the plaintiff failed to establish essential elements of the tort of malicious prosecution, including absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

A commercial tenant applied for relief from forfeiture after being locked out of leased premises for non‑payment of rent.

The court considered the criteria governing relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act, including the conduct of the tenant, whether the forfeiture was primarily to secure payment of money, and the proportionality between the value of the lease and the harm caused by the breaches.

The evidence showed persistent late payment of rent, failure to comply with lease requirements, interference with other tenants, and the tenant’s self‑help re‑entry after the landlord changed the locks.

The court held that the tenant’s conduct and multiple breaches weighed against equitable relief.

Relief from forfeiture was therefore denied.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining an anonymous online poster from publishing defamatory statements on an internet message board about the plaintiff, the CEO of a publicly traded company.

The impugned posts alleged fraud, stock manipulation, offshore accounts, and other misconduct.

The court found the statements were manifestly defamatory, unsupported by any justification, and likely to cause irreparable harm given the wide dissemination and permanence of internet publications.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the alleged defamation caused reputational harm in the province.

An interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from publishing further defamatory statements.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund commenced an action against an insurer seeking reimbursement of accident benefits after serving a Notice of Dispute under the inter‑insurer arbitration regime created by Ontario Regulation 283/95 under the Insurance Act.

The insurer moved for summary judgment arguing that once the Fund initiated the statutory arbitration process it could not abandon that process and instead pursue restitution through litigation.

The court held that the Fund had sufficient information to commence arbitration within the one‑year time limit but failed to follow up and allowed the limitation period to expire.

The “proper case” exception permitting a restitution action outside the arbitration regime did not apply where the Fund’s inability to arbitrate arose from its own inaction.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the action.