Ronald Caza

The applicant law firm was the victim of a wire transfer fraud, resulting in trust funds being erroneously transferred to a corporate bank account controlled by the respondent.

The bank froze the remaining funds.

The applicant brought an application for the return of the funds paid under a mistake of fact.

The court found that the funds were paid under a mistake of fact, the applicant did not intend for the respondent to receive the funds, and there was no consideration.

The respondent failed to establish a change of position defence.

The court ordered the bank to release the funds to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement of a professional negligence action.

The plaintiff had offered to settle on a dismissal without costs basis.

The defendants' counsel accepted the offer 'provided that' the plaintiff execute a standard LawPRO release, which contained a confidentiality clause.

The plaintiff refused to sign the release and withdrew the offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requirement to sign the specific release with a confidentiality clause was an essential term and constituted a counteroffer, meaning no settlement was reached.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, a former student (BR) and the University of Sudbury sought to lift the stay of proceedings to pursue civil litigation regarding historical sexual assault allegations.

BR argued that her claim was exempt from the CCAA claims process under s. 19(2)(b)(i), which exempts awards of damages for sexual assault.

The court dismissed the motions, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Montreal (City) v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc. to hold that the s. 19(2) exception must be interpreted narrowly and only applies once an award of damages has actually been established.

Consequently, the claims must be determined within the CCAA Claims Process.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the sale of shares in a family farming business, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's premature motion and late disclosure.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure to be questionable and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $43,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The plaintiffs, twin sisters, brought an action against their father for damages arising from alleged physical, psychological, and emotional abuse during their childhood and adolescence.

The court found that the father had committed battery, assault, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty by subjecting the plaintiffs to physical violence and threats that exceeded reasonable parental discipline.

However, the court dismissed the claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and wrongful imprisonment, finding insufficient evidence that the father's conduct caused the plaintiffs' psychiatric disorders or that he completely isolated them.

The court awarded general damages of $50,000 to one plaintiff and $35,000 to the other, along with $10,000 each in punitive damages, but dismissed claims for loss of income and competitive advantage.

The borrowers brought a motion to set aside a consent order terminating a receivership, alleging that the Bank and the court-appointed Receiver made misrepresentations during settlement negotiations.

The Bank and the Receiver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the borrowers' subsequent action for damages.

The court found no evidence of misrepresentation, noting that the borrowers had independent legal advice, received full disclosure, and signed multiple full and final releases.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the consent order, denied retroactive leave to sue the Receiver, and granted summary judgment dismissing the borrowers' action on the basis of res judicata.

The defendants brought a motion for non-suit to dismiss the plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim and to withdraw the defence of qualified privilege from the jury regarding the plaintiff's defamation counterclaim.

The court granted the non-suit, finding no evidence that the defendants initiated the criminal proceedings, as the police exercised independent discretion.

The court also withdrew the defence of qualified privilege, ruling that statements made by the plaintiffs to a priest were not made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent municipality sought partial indemnity costs of $27,321.55.

The applicant argued for no costs or symbolic costs, asserting he acted as a public interest litigant regarding municipal workplace harassment obligations.

The court applied the criteria for public interest litigants and awarded the respondent symbolic costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicants sought a stay of orders issued by the respondent municipality under the Building Code Act regarding their heritage buildings, which were in an unsafe condition.

The applicants wanted to demolish the buildings without complying with the heritage permit conditions.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in preserving heritage buildings and ensuring safety.

Following dismissal of a $15 million civil claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendant.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of bad faith litigation conduct and a rejected Rule 49 settlement offer of $250,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity for the entire proceeding but applied Rule 49 principles, awarding partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court also addressed the effect of a special fee arrangement between the defendant and its counsel, holding that costs cannot exceed the client’s actual obligation under s. 20(2) of the Solicitors Act.

Costs were fixed in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the parties and the scale of the litigation.

The defendant developer brought a motion under s. 46 of the Construction Lien Act to declare that the plaintiff's construction lien had expired under s. 37 because the plaintiff's specific action was not set down for trial within two years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that another lien claimant's action, which arose from the same improvement, had been set down for trial within the two-year period.

Under the Act, an action commenced by one lien claimant is an action in which all other liens may be enforced, thus protecting the plaintiff's lien from expiry.

The applicant purchaser brought an emergency application for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The respondent vendor failed to close the transaction on the scheduled date, citing the purchaser's lack of mortgage funds, while the vendor itself had failed to answer requisitions or prepare closing documents due to an internal corporate dispute.

The court found that the vendor's failure to perform its obligations and its implied renunciation of the contract relieved the purchaser of the requirement to tender.

The court ordered specific performance, enforcing an extension of the closing date agreed to by the vendor's ostensible representatives.