Scott McGrath

The plaintiff, Fortress Carlyle Peter St. Inc., sought costs following its successful summary judgment motion for specific performance.

The defendant, Ricki’s Construction and Painting Inc., challenged the plaintiff's requested all-inclusive sum of $100,000 as excessive and unreasonable, proposing $50,000, and argued for divided success.

The court found the underlying motion was not simple, the plaintiff's costs claim reasonable with a $10,000 reduction, and rejected the argument for divided success.

The court awarded the plaintiff $90,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff, Fortress Carlyle Peter St. Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a property in Toronto, or alternatively, relief from forfeiture of a $1 million deposit.

The defendant, Ricki’s Construction and Painting Inc., brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted specific performance to the plaintiff, finding that the defendant's conduct, including delayed delivery and deceitful alteration of an estoppel certificate, disentitled it from insisting on "time of the essence" for the closing.

The property's uniqueness was also a factor supporting specific performance.

The plaintiff, Yaqiong Wang, sought to terminate an agreement to purchase a new-build house from the defendant, Tribute (Grandview) Ltd., after the housing market dropped.

Wang sued for the return of her deposit, while Tribute counterclaimed for specific performance, later amending to seek damages for breach of contract.

Tribute brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found the agreement valid, rejected Wang's claims of a subsequent settlement, and determined that Tribute had not failed to mitigate damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of Tribute, ordering Wang to pay damages for the difference between the original purchase price and the current listing price, less the deposit already paid.

The plaintiffs, as judgment creditors, previously obtained a civil contempt order against the defendant judgment debtor for concealing income and moving assets to defeat his creditors.

The penalty phase was adjourned to allow the defendant to purge his contempt by paying $112,623.

The defendant paid the amount in full, albeit past the deadline.

The court determined the appropriate sentence for the contempt, weighing mitigating factors (purging the contempt, no prior record, apology) against aggravating factors (intentional and long-running misconduct).

The court ordered the defendant to complete 75 hours of volunteer community service over six months.

The appellants moved under Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal's decision maintaining awards of damages against them.

The appellants contended that the trial judge miscalculated damages as of a specific date by failing to consider post-date gains from a transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants were attempting to reargue an issue that had been decided against them at trial and on appeal, and that the theory of damages was not raised in the original appeal.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a right-of-way granted by the respondent municipality in 1971 included the right to permit parking on the property.

The municipality argued the right-of-way only allowed for access and egress.

The court applied principles of contract and easement interpretation, considering the historical context and subsequent conduct of the parties.

The court declared that the right-of-way included the ancillary right to permit parking to access commercial premises, provided it was non-exclusive and did not amount to occupation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to show cause why their action should not be dismissed for delay.

The action arose from a construction mortgage dispute and was related to a separate Brampton action where the defendants had obtained summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Master found that the plaintiffs' involvement in the related action and the defendants' failure to serve a statement of defence provided an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Master also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants and ordered that the action proceed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order compelling them to answer questions refused during an examination in aid of execution.

They also requested an extension of time to file the notice of motion for leave to appeal and a stay of the order pending appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that neither branch of the test under Rule 62.02(4) was met.

There was no conflicting decision on a matter of principle, and no serious doubt about the correctness of the order, nor did the proposed appeal raise matters of general importance beyond the immediate parties.

Consequently, the requests for an extension of time and a stay were also dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for the appointment of an inspector over 2390247 Ontario Inc. c.o.b.

Alyousef Brother’s, alleging he was a beneficial shareholder and that the business was conducted oppressively.

The defendants disputed his shareholder status and argued other remedies should be exhausted.

The court found a prima facie case that the plaintiff was a beneficial shareholder, supported by documentary evidence including emails and text messages demonstrating his involvement in the company's formation and contract negotiations.

Given the defendants' lack of cooperation in providing financial information, the court determined that an investigation was appropriate.

The motion was granted, and an inspector was appointed with specific powers and reporting obligations to investigate the company's financial affairs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs.

The defendants Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. and Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (CMI) moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims and cross-claims against them, arguing that a U.S. federal statute, the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), imposed an 18-year limitation period that had expired.

The motion was opposed by other defendants, Aviation Technical Consultants (ATC) and Corporate Aircraft Restorations Inc. (CAR), who had cross-claimed against CMI for negligent misrepresentation.

The court, applying Ontario's choice of law rules, determined that the tort of negligent misrepresentation occurred in Ontario where CMI's allegedly faulty instructions were received and relied upon.

Consequently, U.S. law, including GARA, did not apply to bar the claims, and CMI's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed national class action alleged that multiple manufacturers conspired to fix prices of polyurethane foam and carpet underlay products.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of several negotiated settlement agreements with numerous defendants totaling approximately $29.28 million for the benefit of the class, along with cooperation provisions to assist claims against remaining defendants.

An objector argued that the settlements should not be approved until a distribution protocol and damages analysis were finalized.

The court held that settlement approval can properly occur before approval of a distribution protocol and that the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the complexity, litigation risk, and absence of meaningful objections.

The settlements were therefore approved.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application to evict a tenant who had smoked in his unit for 22 years.

A neighbouring tenant had vacated due to the cigarette smoke and odour, which the landlord was unable to remedy despite various efforts.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to consider the landlord's ongoing statutory obligation under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the complex fit for habitation for future tenants.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a re-hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The moving party sought enforcement of a settlement agreement requiring the bankruptcy trustee to pay $300,000 toward a previously awarded costs order.

The trustee argued the bankruptcy estate lacked sufficient funds and that payment would prejudice its ability to pay its own fees and ongoing litigation costs.

The court interpreted the settlement memorandum and held that the first $300,000 of the moving party’s costs were expressly not subordinated to the trustee’s fees and expenses.

The trustee’s failure to reserve those funds could not defeat the contractual arrangement.

The court ordered payment of $300,000 in trust to counsel holding a solicitor’s lien, with no costs of the motion.

Following an earlier decision granting relief from forfeiture in a loan dispute, the court addressed competing claims for costs between the parties.

The successful applicant sought partial indemnity costs of the application and requested that the award be set off against the loan repayment amount.

The respondent claimed full indemnity costs pursuant to a contractual debenture provision for enforcement expenses.

The court held that although contractual provisions for costs are generally respected, judicial discretion remains and may be exercised where the successful party has engaged in inequitable conduct.

Finding the respondent’s conduct unreasonable and inequitable, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs and refused to enforce the respondent’s contractual entitlement to costs.

The appellant advanced funds to finance the cost of repairs by third parties to an aircraft owned by the respondent.

It brought a motion for a declaration that it had a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant was not a 'repairer' under the Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that advancing funds to finance repairs does not constitute making a repair or bestowing skill, labour, or money on the aircraft.

The appeal was dismissed.

Remarkable Energy Inc. pledged its feed-in tariff (FIT) contract with the Ontario Power Authority as security for a loan from Crosscurrent Energy Corp. Crosscurrent foreclosed on the security after Remarkable failed to respond to a notice of foreclosure within 15 days.

Remarkable applied for relief from forfeiture.

Crosscurrent argued Remarkable acted in bad faith by failing to negotiate a final price for the sale of the FIT contract.

The court found no bad faith, noted the demand for payment lacked proper details, and held the breach was not grave compared to the value of the FIT contract.

The court granted Remarkable relief from forfeiture.

The applicant sought to continue an interim injunction over an aircraft owned by the respondent, an agency of the Kingdom of Swaziland, claiming a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for funds advanced for refurbishment.

The court found the respondent was not immune under the State Immunity Act due to the commercial activity exception.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant was not a 'repairer' under the Act, the limitation period had expired, and there was no irreparable harm to justify an injunction.

A motion by proposed intervenors was also dismissed.

The aircraft was ordered released to the respondent, with a seven-day stay pending appeal.

An application was brought to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award arising from a contractual dispute involving the supply of agricultural seeds.

The respondent argued the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by ordering repayment of a partial payment after finding both parties had breached the contract and by applying equitable principles outside the contractual terms.

The court held the arbitration clause contemplated disputes relating to breaches of the contract and permitted equitable solutions under the governing arbitration rules.

The arbitrator acted within jurisdiction, and none of the refusal grounds under Article 36 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act were established.

The arbitral award was therefore recognized and enforced.

A franchisor appealed from summary judgment dismissing its claim against a corporation's sole officer, director, and shareholder after the corporation had been found liable for misappropriating funds remitted for payment of utility invoices.

The Court of Appeal held that the individual was not personally liable under the pre-incorporation contract provisions because the corporation had adopted the agreement by conduct, but he was personally liable because he expressly directed the wrongful diversion of funds and the corporate veil should be pierced under Ontario law.

The court upheld the use of summary judgment, rejected reliance on a transition release obtained in the face of material non-disclosure, and found no binding 2007 replacement contract.

Damages were varied downward to reflect conceded deductions and an additional admitted set-off, and appeal costs were awarded against the corporation and the individual jointly and severally.

The applicant sought to enforce letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court compelling Ontario non-parties to provide testimony and documents for use in U.S. antitrust class actions alleging polyurethane foam price‑fixing.

The court applied the established criteria governing enforcement of foreign letters rogatory, including relevance, necessity, availability of evidence elsewhere, public policy concerns, specificity, and burden.

The court found the criteria satisfied for two respondents and held that enforcement would not violate Canadian sovereignty or the respondents’ Charter protections against self‑incrimination.

The application was granted with conditions requiring examinations to proceed under Ontario procedural rules and subject to Charter and Evidence Act protections, while the application against a third respondent was dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary basis.