Shahen Armen Alexanian

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

This appeal addressed the application of the discoverability doctrine to the limitation period for income replacement benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The appellant insurer, The Personal Insurance Company (TPIC), argued that the Divisional Court erred in finding that the insured's application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) was not limitations-barred.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the doctrine of discoverability applies to IRB claims, consistent with its prior decision in Tomec.

It held that a pre-emptive denial of benefits by an insurer does not trigger the limitation period if the insured was not yet eligible for or had not applied for the benefits.

The Court found that the LAT adjudicator had not made an implicit factual finding regarding when the insured applied for benefits, thus allowing the Divisional Court to draw its own inferences.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Divisional Court's decision to remit the matter to the LAT for a new hearing on the substantive merits of the IRB claim.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appellants to pay full indemnity costs to the respondents in the amount of $25,973.05, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The decision was made after the appeal from a Superior Court of Justice judgment.

The appellants appealed a provisional summary judgment order made against them in a mortgage action.

They had defaulted on a syndicated mortgage loan and alleged fraud against the lenders, including the respondents.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and no evidentiary basis for the fraud claims against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision.

The court held that the motion judge correctly applied summary judgment principles, including the holistic approach and the "best foot forward" rule, and properly exercised discretion regarding necessary parties and the risk of inconsistent findings with a related fraud action.

The appellant, Antonio Doria, appealed the dismissal of his action against the respondents, which was brought after he had already received and collected an arbitration award for the same damages.

The motion judge dismissed the action as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), finding that the plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate damages claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that Section 139 of the Courts of Justice Act does not confer an absolute right to pursue separate actions against jointly liable parties if it constitutes an abuse of process, especially when a full opportunity to adjudicate the claim has already occurred and the award collected.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's request for leave to appeal the costs award.

The applicant law firm sought to pay settlement funds into court due to a dispute between its former client and a litigation lender over loan repayment.

The lender sought summary determination of its claim.

The former client disputed the debt, alleging misrepresentation, incapacity, and improper legal advice from the applicant.

The court found no triable issues regarding the client's indebtedness to the lender, noting the small amount in dispute and the lack of a legal defence.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the lender from the trust funds, extinguishing the client's and the applicant's liability to the lender, but preserved the client's right to pursue claims against the applicant.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's trust claim regarding a 46.5-acre property.

The plaintiff alleged that the property, initially transferred to her minor daughter and later sold in two parts to the defendants' father, was held in trust for her.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the plaintiff's lack of detailed supporting evidence, inconsistencies in her claims, and contradiction by documentary evidence and the third party's (the daughter's) testimony.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, concluding that the defendants' narrative, supported by independent documentation and consistent evidence, was credible.

The court issued an endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on a mortgage guarantee.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion and the plaintiff's subsequent request for a mini-trial or expedited trial.

The court reserved the costs of the summary judgment motion to the trial judge, finding it more just given that the claims and defences remained live and the work done would reduce trial costs.

The plaintiff's request for a mini-trial was denied, as it would not allow for proper development of defences due to prior evidentiary deficiencies and lack of discovery.

The court reiterated the need for a case conference to address the action's progress, particularly in light of a key individual's failing health, and to consider an expedited trial.

The plaintiff, 2383431 Ontario Inc., sought summary judgment against individual defendants who guaranteed a mortgage for Rose of Sharon (Ontario) Retirement Community.

The defendants argued the guarantee was limited to interest only and raised equitable defences related to construction defects and the relationship between the original mortgagee (IWOK) and the builder (Unimac).

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the complex factual matrix, including the disputed scope of the guarantee and the relationships between the parties, presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

The judge emphasized that the record did not allow for confident findings of fact or a proportionate resolution of the dispute.