Stephen Allen Brunswick

The court on its own initiative directed the registrar to give notice under Rule 2.1.01(2) that the plaintiff's claim was being considered for dismissal.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a $2.8 million action against the defendant, his former partner and a paralegal, alleging abuse of process, misrepresentation, fraud, and defamation arising from a family law proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found the claim was a transparent collateral attack on court orders made in the family law proceeding, constituting an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters the plaintiff was dissatisfied with.

The claim was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

A vacant land condominium corporation sought damages and disgorgement of profits against its former directors and various defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the release of easements burdening adjacent land.

The plaintiff claimed the directors received secret benefits in exchange for facilitating the release of easements valued at approximately $31.5 million.

The court found that the corporation was contractually obligated to release the easements pursuant to easement release provisions in registered agreements, and that the plaintiff failed to prove the directors received secret benefits or breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the counterclaim.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APSs) for two apartment buildings, specifically regarding the allocation of common amenity costs in a redeveloped condominium complex and the responsibility for leasing and collecting rent for rental units prior to their legal transfer.

The appellant sought to impose higher maintenance costs on the respondents due to City-mandated design changes and to retain control over pre-transfer leasing and rent collection.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the appellant's discretion in cost-sharing was not unfettered and that the respondents, as beneficial owners, were entitled to control leasing and receive rents from the time units became available, thereby preventing unjust enrichment of the appellant.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that granted forfeiture of their deposit and damages for breach of a pre-construction Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellants had advised the respondent they were unable to close and claimed a separate oral contract existed allowing assignment.

They also argued the respondent failed to mitigate damages by selling the property for significantly less.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision that no oral contract was proven and that the respondent's mitigation efforts were reasonable, as the appellants provided no evidence to the contrary regarding property valuation or market prices.

The moving parties (defendants) sought to re-open their appeal, which was previously dismissed as abandoned due to their former counsel's failure to appear and communicate.

The court granted the motion, finding it was in the interests of justice as the moving parties were unaware of the hearing date through no fault of their own, and their former counsel was later suspended by the Law Society.

The appeal was not heard on its merits, and the responding party consented to the re-opening.

The appellants failed to appear for their scheduled appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, despite attempts by the court and respondent's counsel to contact them.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Pomata Investment Corp., sought summary judgment against the defendant, Yanhua Shi, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a residential property.

The defendant argued misrepresentation and lack of duty of care by the plaintiff's agent, and challenged the damages calculation and mitigation efforts.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding liability, rejecting the non est factum defence and the alleged duty of care.

The court also found the plaintiff's mitigation efforts reasonable and the damages calculation valid.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the claimed damages plus interest and costs.

The applicant, a minority shareholder, brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs from the respondent's affidavit in an oppression application.

The court struck paragraphs containing legal argument and conclusions, finding them inappropriate for an affidavit.

However, the court deferred the decision on paragraphs challenged for relevance and character impugnment to the judge hearing the main application, emphasizing that relevance is best assessed in the full context of the application.

The plaintiff, York Region Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 1010, brought a motion for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, including the addition of a new defendant, Patrick Greco.

The defendants opposed certain proposed amendments, arguing they were scandalous, irrelevant, or pleaded evidence.

The Master granted leave to amend the statement of claim and add the new defendant, but struck paragraphs 8, 95, and 102-105 from the proposed pleading, finding them to be scandalous references, irrelevant, or improper pleadings of evidence.

The defendants sought to transfer a civil action from Toronto to Newmarket, arguing common issues with a related family law proceeding.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting the civil action involved discrete transactions and that the family law matter was overly complex and largely irrelevant to his claims.

The court dismissed the transfer motion, finding the moving parties failed to demonstrate that the proposed venue was significantly better, particularly given the limited overlap of issues and the potential for undue complication of the civil claim within the broader family law litigation.

The plaintiff, Eyelet Investment Corp., sought a court declaration that an arbitration initiated by the defendants (purchasers of residential properties) was invalid, arguing that the vendors had not participated in the arbitration process.

The defendants had initiated arbitration claiming termination of agreements of purchase and sale due to Eyelet's alleged failure to provide notice of non-waivable early termination conditions (ETCs) under the Tarion addendum, seeking a refund of deposits.

The court considered whether the arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and whether to defer to the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The court found that the arbitration agreement applied broadly to the dispute, including related tort claims, and affirmed the principle of competence-competence, deferring the matter to arbitration.