Sheldon Inkol

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No 1371 (MTCC 1371) brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss Jermark Plumbing & Mechanical Services Ltd.'s (Jermark) claim for breach of contract and duties of good faith.

Jermark alleged it was the winning bidder for a piping replacement project and that MTCC 1371 breached its obligations by awarding the contract to another company after unit owner objections and a court order.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning contract formation, the exact terms of any agreement, and good faith performance, which depend heavily on witness credibility and the factual narrative.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for indemnification as a former director and to vacate a condominium lien.

The defendant sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for indemnification, finding it barred by res judicata and the limitation period, and upheld the validity of the lien under the Condominium Act.

However, the court ordered the defendant to recalculate and reduce the lien amount, as it included unauthorized costs.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs and the defendant Province brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery in an action concerning an assault on an inmate at a correctional facility.

The court ordered the Province to produce a redacted range plan, summaries of officer training and discipline, and an index of standing orders, balancing relevance with institutional security concerns.

The court dismissed the Province's motion to compel information about the plaintiff's brother's criminal and employment history, finding it irrelevant and disproportionate for assessing the plaintiff's hypothetical earning capacity.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from injuries sustained at a provincial park boat launch.

The moving party argued that the claim was barred because the plaintiff failed to comply with statutory notice requirements under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which requires notice within ten days for claims relating to the Crown’s ownership, occupation, possession, or control of property.

The court found that the claim clearly alleged breach of duties connected to property controlled by the Crown and therefore fell within the statute.

Because no timely notice was provided, the action was rendered a nullity by operation of statute.

The court rejected arguments that the claim fell outside the statute or could be reframed as another tort or contractual claim.