Ronald Jacob Aisenberg

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) brought a motion against Samuel J. Berkovits (debtor) and 1539058 Ontario Inc. (garnishee) to enforce a judgment via garnishment.

CIBC argued that the garnishee's statement was materially false and misleading, effectively amounting to no statement at all, due to late delivery, omissions, and a lack of disclosure regarding payments and reimbursements to the debtor.

The court found that the debtor and garnishee had arranged their finances to avoid garnishment.

The court deemed the garnishee's statement materially deficient and ordered the garnishee to provide extensive documentation regarding all compensation, payments, and personal expenses paid on behalf of the debtor.

The determination of the final amount payable by the garnishee was adjourned pending this disclosure.

The appellant, Stephen B. Sutherland, appealed the dismissal of his action by a motion judge, who found it barred by res judicata and abuse of process.

The action was identical to a counterclaim previously dismissed in a collection action by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the principles of res judicata and abuse of process correctly prevented relitigation.

The court found no evidence of unfairness or injustice to warrant intervention.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of CIBC's motion for partial summary judgment.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs, while the unsuccessful plaintiff requested "costs in the cause." The court determined that partial indemnity costs should follow the event, particularly for partial summary judgment motions, due to the inherent risk undertaken by the moving party.

The court awarded the defendants $26,880.00 in costs, a reduction from their requested amount due to the lack of detailed dockets in their costs outline.

The plaintiff, CIBC, brought a motion for partial summary judgment on a debt claim of $856,602.80 arising from margin calls on an online trading account, and to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants argued they had placed stop loss orders that CIBC failed to execute.

CIBC also had a separate claim for fraudulent conveyance against the defendants, which was not part of the summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the stop loss orders and a real risk of inconsistent findings of fact if the debt claim was severed from the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The Bank of Nova Scotia ("BNS") sought summary judgment against former spouses Danilo Milosevic and Dusica Grabovica for a joint line of credit debt.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Mr. Milosevic's liability for the debt itself, affirming joint and several liability.

However, a genuine issue was found regarding the precise accounting of the debt, specifically the applicable interest rate and calculation of accrued interest, which was ordered to proceed to a trial of the issue.

Ms. Grabovica's liability was already set for a mini-trial concerning her signature's authenticity.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The defendant, CIBC, brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, or strike out the statement of claim, on grounds of res judicata, abuse of process, or failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and for security for costs.

The plaintiff, Stephen B. Sutherland, opposed, arguing for an exception to res judicata based on fairness and claiming impecuniosity regarding security for costs.

The court found that the claims were identical to those previously struck out in a prior "Collection Action" and were therefore barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed, and CIBC was awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by defendants seeking to hold litigation lenders liable for costs incurred by a class member (Mr. Zuber) who pursued an exaggerated damages claim and incurred substantial debt from litigation loans.

The trial judge had refused to order the lenders to pay costs, finding they did not instigate or control the litigation in a manner amounting to an abuse of process, despite the onerous interest rates and the loans impeding settlement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, reiterating that non-party costs are limited to "person of straw" or abuse of process scenarios, neither of which applied to the lenders' conduct.

The court also refused leave to cross-appeal the trial judge's decision not to award costs of the motion to the lenders, finding no error in principle.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank for approximately $172,000 in unsecured debt from a personal line of credit and two credit cards.

The appellant did not contest the existence of the debt or the calculation of the amount owing, but argued the respondent should have enforced its security interest in his cottage rather than assigning the mortgage to third-party mortgagees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the appellant's pleadings regarding the cottage had been struck and the respondent had no legal obligation to proceed as the appellant advocated.

Following a failed motion by the defendants to have their trial costs paid by various litigation loan providers, the loan providers sought their costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs to the loan providers, finding that the defendants' motion raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of a costs award against a litigation loan provider and the requirement for court approval of litigation loan agreements.

Given the novelty of the issue, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the self-represented defendant for amounts owing on a personal line of credit and two credit cards, totaling $172,716.58.

The defendant did not dispute the existence of the credit facilities or the calculation of the amount owing, but argued the bank should have extinguished these debts when it enforced a security interest on his recreational property.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the bank had no obligation to extinguish the unsecured debts when enforcing its secured mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with costs fixed at $6,500.

Following a lengthy trial where the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 but the defendants obtained a costs award of over $3.4 million, the defendants moved to recover those costs from four non-party litigation loan providers who had advanced funds to the plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the non-parties, finding that while the loans carried exorbitant interest rates, providing them did not amount to an abuse of process under the 'person of straw' test or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court also noted that while litigation loans should be approved by the court in class proceedings, the statutory requirement to do so did not exist at the time the loans were made.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment on its claim for credit card debt and to dismiss the self-represented defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant failed to file responding materials despite multiple adjournments.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant did not dispute the principal amounts owing and provided no evidence to support his counterclaim.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with costs fixed at $8,000.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favour of the Bank of Montreal against Granville Cadogan, a lawyer.

The Bank alleged Cadogan made a knowingly false "law statement" in Ontario's electronic land registration system regarding a writ of seizure and sale.

The motion judge awarded damages and punitive damages.

Cadogan appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment and in relying on an incomplete evidentiary record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse the adjournment, given Cadogan's pattern of obfuscation and lack of supporting evidence for his illness.

The court also found the evidentiary record sufficient to support the motion judge's conclusion that Cadogan's statement was false and knowingly made, noting his conduct was inconsistent with any belief of a settlement or release.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for the outstanding balance on a conditional sales agreement for a vehicle.

The defendant argued she was pressured into signing the agreement by a third party and did not understand the documents due to a language barrier, raising defences of duress and non est factum.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, rejecting the duress defence as there was no evidence the dealership was aware of any pressure, and rejecting the non est factum defence due to the defendant's carelessness in signing without reading or asking questions.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff lessor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant lessees for arrears of rent owing under two equipment leases for a truck and a trailer.

The defendants defaulted on payments and argued that mechanical issues with the truck frustrated the lease and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the lease terms explicitly placed the burden of repairs on the lessees and the plaintiff had no duty to mitigate a claim for a fixed debt.

The plaintiff, BMW Financial Services Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Jingwe Liu, for monies owed under a vehicle lease agreement.

The defendant had admitted signing the lease in his statement of defence but later claimed the signature was a forgery and the witness was not present.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding the defendant's admission clear and definite, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court also considered, hypothetically, a motion to withdraw the admission and found it would not be granted due to lack of reasonable explanation and non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for the recovery of $45,000.

The individual defendant, an officer of a corporate client, withdrew the funds with only one signature, despite knowing the account required two signatures.

The bank mistakenly permitted the withdrawal and subsequently reimbursed the corporate client.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the individual defendant was not an innocent recipient and was unjustly enriched by the mistake of fact.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount plus interest, but the claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant lawyer, alleging he falsely stated on an electronic transfer of real property that his client had obtained a full release of a writ of execution.

The defendant sought an adjournment through an agent, which was denied due to a pattern of obfuscation and lack of evidence of illness.

The court found that the defendant's law statement was false and known to be false, rejecting the debtor's late-filed affidavit as incredible and contradicted by documentary evidence.

Summary judgment was granted for the debt and enforcement costs, plus $20,000 in punitive damages to protect the integrity of the electronic registration honour system.

The appellant, a litigation financer, appealed a motion judge's order granting priority over settlement funds to the respondent, the debtor's former partner.

The debtor had signed a separation agreement promising to pay the respondent from any settlement, and later signed irrevocable directions assigning the settlement funds to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the separation agreement did not constitute a valid equitable assignment because it lacked a clear intention to assign the specific funds, whereas the irrevocable directions did.

The appellant was granted priority over the funds.

The appellant towing company appealed a Small Claims Court decision limiting its storage lien against the respondent vehicle owner to 60 days.

The appellant had towed a damaged leased vehicle at the request of police and stored it for over a year without notifying the respondent, who held a registered security interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant was required under s. 4(4) of the Repair and Storage Liens Act to provide written notice within 60 days, and that failure to do so limited the lien to the initial 60-day period.