Sarah Rustomji

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant O3 Industries LLC to enforce payment of a $3 million debt owed by Antamex Industries ULC under an asset purchase agreement.

O3 had provided a guarantee of Antamex's obligations.

O3 raised three defences: (1) the guarantee did not obligate O3 to pay the purchase price; (2) Oldcastle breached representations regarding equipment condition and permits (the equipment defence); and (3) Oldcastle failed to transfer or misrepresented ownership of accounts receivable from the Dalton Project (the Dalton Project defence).

The court granted summary judgment in part, finding the guarantee clearly bound O3 and that the equipment defence was barred by issue estoppel from a prior arbitration.

However, the court found the Dalton Project defence raised a genuine issue requiring trial as to whether the guarantee was void.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion for interim statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain respondents from contravening the City's Nuisance Gathering By-law 0211-2023.

The motion concerned unsanctioned large-scale gatherings at Ridgeway Plaza scheduled for August 13-14 and 19, 2025, coinciding with Pakistan Independence Day and Afghanistan Independence Day celebrations.

The court granted an interim quia timet injunction against all respondents but declined to grant a statutory injunction against the condominium corporations, finding they were not engaged in ongoing by-law contraventions.

The court balanced the serious public safety risks from overcrowding against Charter rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The applicant purchaser sought judicial review of an arbitrator's costs award that ordered him to pay the respondent vendor's legal fees on a substantial indemnity basis following a dismissed arbitration over a cancelled condominium project.

The Divisional Court found it had jurisdiction because the arbitration was mandatory under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Court held the arbitrator's costs decision was unreasonable and internally inconsistent, as it failed to properly apply the specific costs regime in the Tarion Addendum which presumes the vendor pays the purchaser's reasonable legal expenses absent just cause.

The costs award was quashed and remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order granting a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property, alleging the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The court found significant non-disclosure regarding business ownership, property funding, and the timing of a trust agreement, as well as issues with a plaintiff's affidavit.

The motion was granted, the CPL order was set aside, and the CPL was discharged, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant, Textile City Inc., sought relief against forfeiture of a sublease after the respondent, Reliable Logistics, attempted to terminate it, alleging non-permitted retail use and other breaches.

The court found that Textile City Inc. had indeed breached the lease by operating a retail business from the office space, but that Reliable Logistics had not waived its right to forfeiture by accepting rent.

However, the court granted relief against forfeiture, finding that Reliable Logistics had acted in bad faith through a series of actions aimed at forcing Textile City Inc. to vacate, and that Textile City Inc.'s breach was modest and had ceased.

The court also addressed ancillary issues regarding additional rent, garbage bins, and signage.

The plaintiff corporation, 10490423 Canada Inc., commenced an action seeking declaratory relief and damages.

The defendant, 1951584 Ontario Inc., brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with two court orders regarding legal representation and overall delay.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the orders to appoint new counsel or obtain leave for non-lawyer representation, and also failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to secure representation.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action in its entirety based on the non-compliance with court orders.

The separate ground for dismissal based on overall delay was dismissed due to insufficient evidence to meet the required criteria for prejudice.

Following a finding of civil contempt against the corporate defendant for failing to provide a court-ordered accounting regarding a mortgage, the court held a sentencing hearing.

The court found the defendant's subsequent attempt to purge its contempt was inadequate and obfuscating.

Applying the principles of proportionality and deterrence, the court declined to strike the statement of defence but imposed a $25,000 fine, holding the corporation and its directing mind jointly and severally liable.

The court also ordered full indemnity costs of $24,000 and directed the production of specific banking records.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an order declaring the defendant corporation in contempt of court for breaching a prior consent order (the Deposit Order).

The Deposit Order required the defendant to provide an accounting of mortgage payments and to deposit any payments received into its lawyer's trust account.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with the clear and unequivocal terms of the accounting and deposit provisions.

The defendant was found in contempt, with the penalty to be determined at a subsequent sentencing hearing.

The applicant, Unitop, sought a declaration and injunction against the respondent, Exclusive, alleging breach of a 2015 default judgment and trademark infringement/passing off.

Unitop claimed Exclusive's "ORIGINAL SESAME" product, with similar packaging and UPC codes, infringed on Unitop's "SESAME SNAPS" intellectual property.

The court found the 2015 default judgment ambiguous and not applicable to Unitop's new packaging design (adopted in 2020) or Exclusive's "ORIGINAL SESAME" product (introduced in 2021).

The court also determined that Unitop failed to prove valid and enforceable trademark or copyright rights in its new packaging design or establish the elements of passing off, particularly distinctiveness and confusion.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a director of a corporation, sought leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of the corporation against two other directors.

The applicant alleged that the other directors misappropriated returned deposit funds from a failed real estate transaction by diverting them to another company they controlled and distributing them to themselves and select partners.

The court found the applicant was acting in good faith and that the proposed action was in the interests of the corporation.

Leave was granted to the applicant to commence the derivative action, but the request for advance costs was denied.

This decision addresses the costs of a previous motion where Economical Insurance successfully moved to strike portions of the plaintiffs' claims.

The court found Economical to be the successful party on the underlying motion.

While the plaintiffs' counsel's conduct in noting Economical in default was improper and lengthened the proceeding, it was not serious enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Economical in the amount of $7,500.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding the claimed amount proportional with a minor deduction for duplicate time.

The plaintiffs sued their insurer and an auto body shop over defective repairs to their vehicle following an accident, claiming damages for the repair costs, fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, negligence, and mental distress, along with 22% interest.

The insurer brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, strike all non-contractual claims, and transfer the action to Small Claims Court.

The court set aside the noting in default and struck the claims for fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, negligence, mental distress, and 22% interest, finding the plaintiffs failed to plead the necessary material facts to support these causes of action.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings on strict terms but declined to transfer the action to Small Claims Court to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings with the ongoing Superior Court action against the auto body shop.