Stephen Allen Brunswick

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.

In a family property proceeding, certain added foreign respondents moved to set aside interlocutory worldwide Mareva and preservation orders on the basis that they were foreign parties with no sufficient connection to Ontario.

The court held that the respondent spouse's allegations of trust ownership, asset diversion, and risk of dissipation remained substantively unanswered, and that equity favoured preserving the disputed assets pending adjudication of equalization and support claims.

The court found that concerns about comity and practical enforceability did not bar continuation of the orders, particularly given the parallel Florida proceeding and the applicant spouse's invocation of the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed and the prior injunctive orders remained in place.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b), 25.06, and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and breach of trust.

The court held that most claims were inadequately pleaded and failed to disclose material facts necessary to establish the alleged causes of action, particularly against the individual defendants as directing minds of corporate entities.

Claims for fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, and unjust enrichment were struck for failure to plead material facts, and allegations supporting piercing the corporate veil were also insufficient.

The only potentially viable claims were breach of contract against one corporate defendant and breach of a written trust agreement regarding certain land.

The entire claim was struck with leave granted to file a further amended pleading limited to those causes of action.

The plaintiff landlord sought summary judgment for approximately $800,000 in alleged unpaid rent from its commercial tenant and guarantor, arising from the tenant paying only 50% of minimum rent after opening its store before certain parking spaces were provided.

The dispute turned on whether a lease amending agreement implicitly removed the tenant’s contractual right to pay reduced rent when opening conditions were unmet.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation emphasizing objective intention derived from the text and surrounding circumstances.

It held that the amendment concerning alternative parking did not modify the tenant’s right under the original lease to pay 50% rent until the required parking spaces were delivered.

The landlord’s claim for back rent was dismissed and the related summary judgment motion by the landlord’s former lawyers seeking dismissal of the negligence claim against them was also dismissed.

The appellant, an Ontario corporation, sought to enjoin an Israeli bank from drawing upon a letter of credit issued by a Canadian bank in Ontario.

The motion judge stayed the action, finding that Israel was the more convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while Ontario had jurisdiction, the motion judge did not err in concluding that Israel was the more convenient forum given that the majority of witnesses and evidence were located there, and the factual matters in dispute arose in Israel.

Two respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the failure to provide Rear Window Captioning technology in movie theatres brought a motion to add a competitor as a respondent to the combined proceedings.

The competitor initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew its opposition and consented to being added.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it appropriate to add the competitor so that key participants in the film industry could meet the allegations of discrimination together.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for pleadings and directed the parties to mediation.

The appellant developer appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase development lands for over $45 million.

The appellant argued that the respondents' negotiators had actual or ostensible authority to conclude the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of actual authority and no representations by the principals to support a finding of ostensible authority.