Stefano Tripodi

The defendant brought a motion for an independent medical examination (IME) of the plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff alleged an inability to mitigate damages due to a mental health condition, claiming this would prevent mitigation for up to 26 months.

The court, acknowledging the unusual nature of an IME in wrongful dismissal cases, found it appropriate given the plaintiff's prolonged assertion of inability to mitigate.

The motion was granted, conditional on the plaintiff's inability to mitigate extending beyond 12 months from the date of termination, balancing the employer's right to test such assertions against potential abuse.

The applicant was successful on a motion for a certificate of pending litigation and in defeating a cross-motion to stay the application.

In determining costs, the court rejected the applicant's revised costs outline, which substantially increased the hours claimed and was submitted after the fact, relying instead on the initial costs outline to protect the integrity of the process.

The court awarded the applicant $30,000 in partial indemnity costs, which included full indemnity costs for an unreasonable motion brought against the applicant's representative.

The applicant brought an application to determine its fee under a Sales Representation Agreement after introducing the respondent to an investor for a real estate development project.

The respondent argued the transaction was a sale, which would make the fee clause unenforceable as the applicant was not a registered broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The court found the transaction was in substance an investment, triggering the alternative fee clause.

The court awarded the applicant $1,800,000 and granted a charge on the property to secure payment.

The moving party sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a commercial property, claiming an interest based on a Sales Representation Agreement.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to stay or dismiss the application, arguing the moving party was an unregistered broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act (REBBA) and operated under an unregistered business name contrary to the Business Names Act (BNA).

The Master dismissed the cross-motion, finding the transaction was part of an ongoing business venture rather than a simple real estate trade, and that the business name non-registration was inadvertent.

The Master granted the CPL, noting the moving party established a triable issue regarding its interest in the property, but ordered the CPL postponed to existing and construction financing to avoid harming the development project.