Steven D. Gadbois

The plaintiff sold its landscaping business assets to the defendant.

The defendant paid a portion on closing and executed a promissory note for the balance.

The defendant subsequently defaulted on the promissory note, alleging the plaintiff misrepresented the business's revenue and failed to deliver customer information.

The court rejected the defendant's unpleaded misrepresentation claims, finding the defendant failed to conduct proper due diligence and that the revenue decline was due to the defendant's own actions.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the $65,500 balance owing on the promissory note.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for specific performance of a condominium purchase agreement on a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendant.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs but submitted a bill calculated on a substantial indemnity basis for approximately $47,750.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a nominal award of $5,000, citing his real estate lawyer's failure to advise him of a demand letter.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that issues with his lawyer should not affect the successful defendant's entitlement to costs.

Applying the principles of indemnity and reasonable expectations under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property via summary judgment.

The defendant terminated the agreement due to the plaintiff's failure to pay a third deposit.

The plaintiff argued promissory estoppel and that the written agreement did not reflect the true terms.

The court found the plaintiff in breach, rejecting the estoppel argument and the claim that a prior verbal agreement superseded the written contract due to an "entire agreement" clause.

Specific performance was denied as the property was not sufficiently unique.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiff's deposits were forfeited to the defendant.

The appellant, who had an extensive litigation history against the respondent municipality, appealed a costs order.

The application judge had declined to award costs on the appellant's application to quash two municipal resolutions banning him from municipal facilities, finding that success would have been divided had the matter been heard on the merits before the resolutions were repealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge made no error in principle and that it was reasonably open to him to find that success would have been divided.

The appellant purchaser sought the return of its deposit after aborting a commercial real estate transaction due to environmental issues and a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Prohibition registered on title.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the purchaser had waived the environmental condition and failed to adduce evidence that it had not received the environmental order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the waiver of the environmental condition effectively waived the title objection, and that the purchaser bore the evidentiary burden on summary judgment to prove it had not received the order.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for contaminated industrial property and sought entitlement to retain a $50,000 deposit.

The purchaser had waived an environmental condition in the agreement after receiving information regarding contamination and a Ministry of the Environment prohibition order registered on title.

The court held that the purchaser knowingly accepted the environmental risks when it waived the condition and took an assignment of the agreement, and was not entitled to refuse closing on the basis that the order had not been removed from title.

The court concluded that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

Summary judgment dismissing the action was granted.

The appellant appealed from summary judgment holding that it wrongfully removed a driver from its roster of approved drivers.

The appeal focused on whether the motion judge erred in discounting affidavit evidence based on information and belief in a simplified procedure action and in preferring direct responding evidence.

The court held that Rule 20.02(1) permitted an adverse inference from the failure to produce evidence from persons with personal knowledge of contested facts and that the motion judge was entitled under Rule 20.04(2.1) to weigh the evidence and assess credibility.

Applying a palpable and overriding error standard to the weighing of the evidence, the court found no basis to interfere and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Following dismissal of a wrongful dismissal action after a four-day trial, the court determined the costs consequences where the defendant had abandoned a counterclaim at the commencement of trial.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for preparation relating to the counterclaim, which had required trial preparation before its discontinuance.

Applying Rules 23.05 and 23.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs attributable to the counterclaim up to the point of discontinuance.

The court apportioned 25% of pre‑trial preparation to the counterclaim and set off those costs against the defendant’s entitlement following dismissal of the main action.

After adjustments and set‑off, the plaintiff was ordered to pay net costs to the defendant.

Following an unsuccessful estate application brought by the executor, the successful responding beneficiaries and a corporate trustee sought costs.

The court considered the Rule 57 factors governing costs awards, including the reasonableness of the fees sought and the amount an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay.

Although both respondents were entitled to partial indemnity costs, the court reduced the corporate trustee’s claimed fees due to proportionality concerns and its more limited role in the litigation.

The court ordered that the costs be paid personally by the executor rather than from the estate, emphasizing that the estate should not bear the expense of unsuccessful litigation pursued by a trustee.

Following an unsuccessful estate application brought by the executor, the successful responding beneficiaries and a corporate trustee sought costs.

The court considered the Rule 57 factors governing costs awards, including the reasonableness of the fees sought and the amount an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay.

Although both respondents were entitled to partial indemnity costs, the court reduced the corporate trustee’s claimed fees due to proportionality concerns and its more limited role in the litigation.

The court ordered that the costs be paid personally by the executor rather than from the estate, emphasizing that the estate should not bear the expense of unsuccessful litigation pursued by a trustee.

An estate trustee applied to remove a corporate co-trustee from administering an estate that held valuable Muskoka cottage property subject to life interests.

The applicant argued the corporate trustee obstructed efforts to obtain a reverse mortgage to fund repairs and maintenance after the estate’s capital maintenance fund was exhausted.

The court applied the established test for removal of trustees, emphasizing that a testator’s choice of trustee should not be lightly interfered with and that removal requires clear necessity and must promote the welfare of beneficiaries.

The proposed borrowing arrangement was vague and risked depleting the trust asset while primarily benefiting the life tenant at the expense of residual beneficiaries.

The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal of the corporate trustee was necessary or that it was the only viable course.

An estate trustee applied to remove a corporate co-trustee from administering an estate that held valuable Muskoka cottage property subject to life interests.

The applicant argued the corporate trustee obstructed efforts to obtain a reverse mortgage to fund repairs and maintenance after the estate’s capital maintenance fund was exhausted.

The court applied the established test for removal of trustees, emphasizing that a testator’s choice of trustee should not be lightly interfered with and that removal requires clear necessity and must promote the welfare of beneficiaries.

The proposed borrowing arrangement was vague and risked depleting the trust asset while primarily benefiting the life tenant at the expense of residual beneficiaries.

The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal of the corporate trustee was necessary or that it was the only viable course.

The court determined costs following a successful motion arising from a dispute over the interpretation and enforcement of a formal Offer to Settle.

The moving party achieved complete success on the motion and sought costs against the opposing party, who had contested whether acceptance of the offer resolved the entire action.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant appellate authority, the court found the opposing party’s litigation conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, including prolonging proceedings and dissipating assets contrary to a prior order.

The court awarded the successful party $15,000 for the motion and assessed the opposing party’s allowable legal expenses under the wording of the accepted offer.

After calculating permitted legal expenses and applying a set-off between the competing amounts, the court determined the net deduction applicable to the judgment.

The successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs for four appeals totaling $10,495.51.

The appellants argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $3,000.

The court found the respondents' request reasonable and in line with the Boucher test, noting the appellants' own costs outline was for $9,549.24.

The court awarded the respondents costs of $2,623.88 for each appeal, totaling $10,495.51.

The successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs for four appeals totaling $10,495.51.

The appellants requested no costs or a reduced amount of $3,000.

Noting that the appellants did not complain about the rate or time spent, and that their own costs outline was similar, the court found the respondents' request met the Boucher test and awarded the full amount claimed.

A sales representative sued for commission arising from an exceptionally large pandemic-related order placed within his exclusive territory.

The employer argued that an internal notice limiting commissions and a later bonus agreement reduced the representative’s entitlement.

The court held that the original commission agreement did not permit unilateral alteration by notice, but the representative subsequently signed a bonus agreement accepting a reduced payment.

Although the agreement was harsh and the bargaining power unequal, the evidence did not establish coercion, duress, or unconscionability sufficient to invalidate the contract.

The representative’s claim for full commission failed and the bonus agreement governed.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing delay, lack of leave under Rule 48.04, and claiming impecuniosity such that ordering security would prevent continuation of the action.

The court found that the plaintiff appeared to be ordinarily resident in Costa Rica and had not displaced that appearance.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of impecuniosity and declined cross‑examination on his affidavit.

The court concluded it was just to order security and fixed the amount based on partial indemnity costs estimated through trial.

Four appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court motions for judgment based on alleged settlements.

The deputy judge had previously set aside default judgments against the respondents and found that no settlements had been concluded.

When the appellants later brought motions to enforce the alleged settlements, the deputy judge dismissed them on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court upheld the deputy judge's findings, concluding there was no conflict of interest and that the issue of settlement was res judicata as it had been squarely raised and decided in the prior motion.

The appellants appealed four Small Claims Court decisions dismissing their motions for judgment based on alleged settlements.

The deputy judge had previously set aside default judgments against the respondents, finding no settlements were concluded.

On the subsequent motions to enforce the settlements, the deputy judge dismissed them on the basis of res judicata.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the deputy judge's refusal to recuse himself and agreeing that the issue of settlement was res judicata as it had been squarely raised and decided in the prior motions.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent sought to maintain only its claim for damages.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the claim for damages was not foreclosed by res judicata and dismissed the appeal with costs.