Shahen Armen Alexanian

The plaintiff seller brought an action against the defendant buyer for forfeiture of a $250,000 deposit and damages after a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The buyer refused to close, alleging the seller failed to rectify an illegal third-floor residential conversion and a resulting city work order.

The buyer also brought a third-party claim against its real estate lawyer for professional negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the buyer intentionally orchestrated the work order for leverage and failed to properly requisition the issue within the contractual deadline.

The court held the transaction was not unconscionable, denied relief from forfeiture, awarded the seller the deposit plus $6,645 in out-of-pocket damages, and dismissed the third-party claim against the lawyer, finding he met the standard of a reasonably prudent solicitor.

The plaintiff brought an action under the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling on a rubber fingertip mat in the vestibule of the defendant's premises.

The defendant moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the defendant met the standard of care, as the mat was a standard commercial mat, in good repair, and subject to reasonable seasonal and daily inspection protocols.

Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiff's expert evidence and found the plaintiff failed to prove that the mat caused her fall, noting she was wearing high wedge-heeled shoes and the video evidence contradicted her account.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion to consolidate or try together its action against its insurer for business interruption and water damage with a companion action brought by its landlord for rental arrears and repair costs.

Both actions arose from a flood in the leased premises, with overlapping factual issues regarding the cause of the flood and the tenant's cooperation in remediation efforts.

The court granted the motion, finding that the actions shared common questions of fact and arose from the same occurrence, and that trying them together would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that required her to attend an in-person insurer examination (IE) before advancing her application for a psychological assessment.

The applicant argued the IE should be a paper review and that the Tribunal misapplied case law.

The Executive Chair found no error, holding that the insurer's request for an in-person IE was reasonable under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and that the insured cannot dictate the identity of the IE examiner.

The request for reconsideration was denied, and the application was adjourned for 60 days to allow the IE to take place.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to withdraw as counsel due to a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant consented to the withdrawal.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw, ordered the motion record sealed due to its sensitive and potentially prejudicial nature, and directed that a different arbitrator be selected to hear the case on the merits.

The appellant sought appeal expenses of approximately $4,400 after the respondent conceded the appeal following a change in case law.

The respondent argued it should not be liable for expenses because it conceded the appeal once the new decision was released.

The Director's Delegate found the appellant was entitled to expenses based on her success, noting the respondent's actions were analogous to a withdrawal request which does not guarantee no expenses will be awarded.

The expenses were fixed at $3,750.00, slightly reduced from the claimed amount for reasonableness.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought approval for a psychiatric assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan and requested the applicant attend an independent psychiatric examination under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons.

On a preliminary issue, the Tribunal found the insurer's notice complied with s. 44.

While the applicant could be precluded from proceeding under s. 55 for non-attendance, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to adjourn the application for 60 days to allow the applicant to attend the examination, noting it would be unfair to bar the claim entirely when both parties agreed a psychiatric assessment was necessary.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer.

After a dispute arose, she filed for mediation but failed to attend the rescheduled mediation session.

The arbitrator dismissed her subsequent Application for Arbitration as statute-barred, finding she acted in bad faith by not attending.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision, holding that under the Insurance Act, mediation fails when the prescribed or agreed time expires without a settlement.

Since the time had expired and the mediator issued a report of failed mediation, the appellant was entitled to proceed to arbitration.

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 applicant claimed statutory accident benefits and subsequently withdrew his application after failing to meet production timelines set in a case conference order.

The respondent brought a motion for costs, arguing the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant made substantial efforts to comply with the orders and that the respondent could have consented to an adjournment request instead of opposing the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that a withdrawal alone is rarely sufficient for a costs award.

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.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for accident benefits, which the insurer denied.

The appellant sought mediation, but failed to attend the scheduled mediation sessions after the parties agreed to extend the time for mediation.

The mediator issued a report of failed mediation, and the appellant subsequently applied for arbitration.

The Arbitrator dismissed the application as statute-barred, finding that mediation had not failed but simply did not take place due to the appellant's non-attendance.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision, holding that under section 280(7) of the Insurance Act, mediation fails when the agreed time for mediation expires without a settlement, regardless of the mediator's opinion or the parties' attendance.

The application for arbitration was therefore not statute-barred.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The applicant filed an Application for Mediation, but neither party took steps to schedule it within the prescribed 60-day period, leading FSCO to close the file and deem the mediation failed.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to dismiss the subsequent Application for Arbitration, arguing the applicant failed to participate in mediation in good faith.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Hurst et al., which held that mediation fails simply upon the expiry of the 60-day prescribed time limit, regardless of the parties' subjective intentions or active participation.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant continued to work for two years post-accident before claiming income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and noted numerous contradictions.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the applicant failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 32 of the Schedule and failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The claim for medical benefits was also dismissed as the treatment plan was not shown to be reasonable or necessary.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

A mediation was scheduled but the Applicant and her representative failed to attend without excuse.

The Insurer brought a motion to permanently stay the arbitration on the basis that the Applicant failed to participate in the mediation process, a statutory precondition to arbitration under the Insurance Act.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the Applicant's failure to attend meant the mediation did not take place, and therefore the statutory preconditions under sections 281(1) and (2) of the Insurance Act were not met.

The application for arbitration was permanently stayed.

The appellant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sued for damages.

At trial, the jury awarded $25,000 in general damages and $5,000 for future health care, but the trial judge granted the respondents' threshold motion under the Insurance Act, reducing the damages to zero.

The appellant appealed the threshold ruling, the trial judge's refusal to put the loss of income claim to the jury, and the jury charge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the threshold analysis, agreeing there was insufficient evidence to support a loss of income claim, and concluding the jury charge was appropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in his dismissal from the respondent law firm.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had an ongoing civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts and seeking Code remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action had not been discontinued and sought remedies for Code infringement arising from the same facts.

Accordingly, the application was barred by section 34(11) and dismissed.

The applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer capped their medical benefits under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated the husband's income replacement benefits (IRB).

The arbitrator found that both applicants developed chronic pain, which is an aberrant physiology not contemplated by the MIG, thus removing them from the $3,500 cap.

However, the claims for specific medical benefits were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

The husband was awarded his claimed IRB as his injuries caused a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment as a truck driver.

Expenses were awarded to the applicants.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing her claim for attendant care benefits and a special award.

The arbitrator had found that the appellant did not clearly communicate her impecuniosity to the insurer, and therefore the insurer did not unreasonably withhold benefits under subsection 3(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director's Delegate rescinded the decision, holding that subsection 3(8) does not require an insured to communicate their financial inability to pay as a pre-requisite to deeming an expense incurred.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for a new hearing.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought damages for various physical and psychological injuries.

A jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and dismissed her other claims.

The defendants subsequently brought a threshold motion under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the jury's verdict should be strongly considered when deciding a threshold motion.

Finding that the plaintiff's current conditions were not caused by the accident and agreeing with the jury's implicit finding of only minor and transitory injuries, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action.