Sidney N. Lederman

The applicant purchaser of a condominium unit sought relief alleging inadequate disclosure in the condominium corporation’s status certificate, arguing that undisclosed imminent roof repairs and expropriation funds rendered a subsequent special assessment inapplicable to its unit.

The corporation had received expropriation proceeds from a TTC project and placed them in the reserve fund to finance roof replacement.

A second special assessment was issued solely as an administrative mechanism to access those reserve funds and provided unit owners with options that resulted in no net financial change.

The court held that the status certificate’s disclosure did not result in prejudice because no increase in common expenses was required from unit owners.

The applicant was treated identically to other owners and suffered no financial disadvantage.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff and defendants by counterclaim brought a motion to strike portions of an Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on the basis that certain allegations were irrelevant, frivolous, or disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court struck paragraphs relating to a separate incident and repetitive descriptions of the parties’ physical attributes.

Allegations concerning the prior relationship between the parties and statements about the plaintiff’s employment with his lawyer were permitted to remain because they responded to issues raised in the statement of claim.

The court held that lawyers acting for a party do not owe a duty of care to opposing parties, and therefore claims against the plaintiff’s counsel and her law firm in their professional capacity could not stand.

The counterclaim was struck out with leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a gas station property after the vendor forcibly repossessed the property while the purchaser was in possession pending final closing.

The defendant argued the agreement was unenforceable due to misidentification of the vendor, non‑payment of deposits, unpaid supplier accounts, lack of readiness to close, and absence of uniqueness of the property.

The court found the misidentification of the vendor was an inadvertent drafting error, that the plaintiff had substantially paid the required deposits and complied with the agreement, and that the vendor had no justification to retake possession.

The property was sufficiently unique to justify specific performance and the equities favoured the purchaser.

The court ordered specific performance and directed a reference to account for deposits, operating profits, and inventory values prior to closing.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action against a hospital in a medical malpractice proceeding, the court addressed costs.

The hospital sought recovery of its costs for both the summary judgment motion and the broader action.

The court considered whether a Bullock or Sanderson order was appropriate and the impact of a co-defendant physician’s refusal to admit a key factual issue relating to nursing care.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57.01(1)(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the physician’s refusal to admit the fact necessitated the motion and justified shifting the hospital’s costs to him.

The hospital’s costs were fixed for the motion, the action, and the costs hearing.

The defendant corporation brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action for wrongful dismissal arising from the termination of a management consulting agreement.

The defendant alleged that the plaintiff consultant committed a “criminal act of dishonesty” by installing hidden surveillance cameras to intercept private communications at a company property, relying on a prior finding that the conduct breached s. 184(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that determining whether the criminal act constituted dishonesty within the contractual clause, and whether the act was intended to result in personal gain at the company’s expense, required a contextual assessment of intent and surrounding corporate conflict.

Given conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff’s motives and the broader corporate struggle between board factions, the issues were unsuitable for determination on a summary judgment record.

A full trial was required to properly assess credibility and context.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a decision of the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had decided not to refer a patient's complaint to discipline, but instead cautioned the applicant and required him to take an educational program on patient communication after he insisted on a written apology from a patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable regarding the adequacy of the investigation, the characterization of the applicant's conduct, and the consideration of his prior complaints history.

The appellant sought to hold city councillors personally liable for voting in favour of a by-law that reimbursed two councillors for legal expenses related to election compliance audits.

The by-law was subsequently declared ultra vires.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that municipal councillors are not absolutely liable for ultra vires acts.

To establish personal liability for breach of fiduciary duty to taxpayers, a plaintiff must prove malice, bad faith, or misfeasance.

The court found no evidence that the councillors acted with an improper motive or preferred their personal interests over their duties.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of a fresh as amended statement of claim in an employment-related action seeking damages for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, misrepresentation, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

The court held that the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against an individual corporate officer because it did not plead material facts showing independent misconduct separate from the corporation.

The court struck the claims against the individual defendant and dismissed the action as against him.

However, the court found sufficient pleaded facts to support the allegation that two corporate defendants could be treated as common employers.

The claim for unjust enrichment was also struck for failure to plead a tangible benefit retained by the defendants.

The purchaser applied for the return of a $100,000 deposit after refusing to close a residential real estate transaction due to an outstanding building permit on the property.

The vendors obtained a commitment from a title insurer to insure over the open permit and offered to complete the transaction with a holdback pending closure of the permit.

The court held that, under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, a commitment for title insurance was sufficient to address the requisition regarding the open permit.

The purchaser failed to act in good faith by prematurely abandoning the transaction before the closing deadline and by not pursuing the available title insurance solution.

The purchaser was therefore in breach of the agreement and was not entitled to recover the deposit.

The moving party hospital sought summary judgment dismissing a medical negligence action arising from a post-surgical brain infection allegedly caused by a nurse’s failure to report purulent drainage from a patient’s incision prior to discharge.

The plaintiffs alleged the nurse negligently allowed discharge without informing the treating physician or properly documenting the observation.

The court held that the motion record permitted a full appreciation of the issues and that the circumstantial and usual-practice evidence supported the inference that the nurse had reported the drainage to the physician and complied with the applicable standard of care.

The plaintiffs failed to produce evidence contradicting the nurse’s usual practice or establishing causation between any alleged failure and the injury.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the claims and cross‑claims against the hospital.

Former franchisees rescinded their franchise agreements under the Arthur Wishart Act after failing to receive a disclosure document.

Following a reference determining the franchisor’s payment obligations under s. 6(6) of the Act, the franchisor defendants moved to oppose confirmation of the Master’s report, challenging awards for inventory, supplies and equipment, the refusal to offset profits earned during operation, and the costs award.

The court applied the deferential standard governing review of a master’s report and held that no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence had been demonstrated.

The court confirmed that payments under s. 6(6)(a)-(c) are independent statutory entitlements and cannot be offset by profits under s. 6(6)(d).

The Master’s findings and costs award were upheld.

The plaintiff sold shares of a real estate brokerage to the defendant purchaser under a share purchase agreement and promissory note for $490,000.

After making several instalment payments, the purchaser stopped paying and alleged numerous misrepresentations and breaches of warranty relating to financial statements, agent rosters, liabilities, and business operations, seeking damages and repayment through a counterclaim.

The court found that the purchaser was a sophisticated businessperson who conducted limited due diligence and knowingly proceeded without contractual protections or price adjustments.

Alleged misrepresentations regarding financial statements, agent numbers, liabilities, and business practices were unsupported, and the purchaser did not rely on them when entering the agreement.

Although the vendor breached the agreement by failing to provide audited financial statements, the breach caused no damage and was effectively waived.

The vendor was therefore entitled to recover the outstanding balance under the promissory note and the counterclaim was dismissed.

Following a successful application under the Competition Act resulting in restitution orders and administrative monetary penalties against multiple respondents, the applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $231,768.35.

One respondent opposed the request, arguing the matter was over-lawyered, that legal research disbursements should be excluded, and that costs should be apportioned based on the relative administrative monetary penalties imposed.

The court accepted that the proceeding was complex and a matter of first impression requiring extensive investigation and research, but found some duplication of work by counsel.

The court reduced the overall fees by 15% while allowing the legal research disbursement.

Costs were ordered jointly and severally against the respondents.

The appellant franchisee appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondent franchisor for breach of the statutory duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The appellant argued that the franchisor failed to provide sufficient disclosure regarding a right of first refusal for a new restaurant location, specifically concerning the final lease terms and the size of the exclusive territory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the franchisor acted in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner, and that the appellant's decision to pass on the location was an informed one based on its own financial position and lack of confidence in the landlord.

The appellants and respondents are adjoining neighbours involved in a dispute over a parking easement on the respondents' property.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order that limited their parking to a single vehicle and required them to park so as not to restrict the respondents' backyard access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly interpreted the original grant of easement and the surrounding circumstances, which indicated an intention to create a right to park only one vehicle.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The father appealed from urgent temporary orders granting the mother temporary custody, support, and preservation of assets, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the real and substantial connection test for the Family Law Act claims and the statutory criteria under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act for the custody claims.

The court affirmed that jurisdiction can be assumed on a prima facie basis for urgent temporary orders while adjourning the final determination of forum conveniens.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the respondents.

The trial judge had found no evidence of misappropriation of funds and concluded that the respondents' involvement was financially neutral to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were amply supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

A cross-appeal regarding costs was also dismissed.

The plaintiff in a class proceeding moved to quash the appeals of the defendant and non-party franchisees, arguing the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The order in question invalidated certain opt-out coupons but granted those class members a further opportunity to opt out after a final disposition on the merits.

The Court of Appeal held the order was final because it deprived the defendant of a binding judgment against all putative class members and of a limitations defence.

The motions to quash were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that largely denied his motion to change child and spousal support and ordered him to pay significant arrears.

He argued the trial judge erred by denying an adjournment to retain counsel, imputing income without sufficient evidence, and ordering him to pay 100 percent of horse-related section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the adjournment, had a sufficient basis to impute income due to the appellant's failure to provide financial information, and correctly treated the horse-related expenses as section 7 expenses.