Symon Zucker

The appellants moved under Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal's decision maintaining awards of damages against them.

The appellants contended that the trial judge miscalculated damages as of a specific date by failing to consider post-date gains from a transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants were attempting to reargue an issue that had been decided against them at trial and on appeal, and that the theory of damages was not raised in the original appeal.

The appellant appealed a civil contempt sentence imposed by the motion judge for multiple failures to comply with court orders.

The motion judge had imposed six consecutive sentences totaling 21 months.

On a motion to vary, the motion judge reduced the global sentence to 14 months after finding the appellant had purged contempt in part and made good faith settlement payments.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not reconsidering whether sentences should be concurrent rather than consecutive.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle but, considering further good faith payments made since the motion judge's decision, reduced the global sentence to 12 months.

The appellant, a personal guarantor of corporate indebtedness, appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent lender US$3 million plus interest at 21% on his personal guarantee.

The guarantor had negotiated an amended guarantee that excluded facility and forbearance fees totaling US$2.75 million from his liability.

The lender acquired the company's assets through a receivership sale, with the purchase price calculated as total debt less US$3 million.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider that the amended guarantee served to reduce the company's obligations that were guaranteed.

The court held that the guarantor's liability should be calculated as the remaining debt after the credit bid (US$3 million) less the excluded fees (US$2.75 million), resulting in liability of only US$250,000.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add a corporate plaintiff, Northeast Engineering & Development Ltd., and new causes of action for intentional interference with economic relations and breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendants opposed, arguing prejudice, abuse of process, and that the proposed claims were untenable.

The court granted leave, finding the proposed claims raised triable issues, the amendments complied with pleading rules, and the addition of the corporate plaintiff did not constitute undue prejudice or abuse of process, especially given the claims arose from the same facts and could have been brought in a separate action.

The applicant, an estate trustee and beneficiary, moved to appoint an institutional estate trustee during litigation for her father's substantial estate.

The motion was opposed by the other estate trustees (the applicant's mother and siblings) and another sibling.

The court found that the mother, Ida Rubin, likely lacked capacity, and the other estate trustees had engaged in questionable transactions, including retroactively characterizing assets as jointly held to avoid probate fees, making large gifts from the spousal trust to themselves, and failing to provide proper disclosure or pass accounts despite repeated requests.

The court emphasized its inherent jurisdiction to supervise estates and appoint an estate trustee during litigation to ensure neutral stewardship, protect beneficiaries' interests, and maintain a level playing field, especially given the conflicts of interest and animosity among the parties.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the Appellant's 2011 sexual assault conviction and his subsequent failure to disclose the pending criminal charges on his 2012 and 2013 registration renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the sexual assault appeared to be an isolated incident unlikely to recur, the Appellant knowingly provided false and misleading information to the Registrar on his renewal applications.

The Tribunal concluded that this conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the Appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law, integrity, and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

Shareholders of two successive corporate ventures to develop oil and gas fields in Russia sued defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, and conspiracy.

The defendants had induced the plaintiffs to invest US$50 million in a sham public company (Magellan) by falsely representing that another investor (BDW) had committed to investing US$70 million.

When the fraud was discovered, the parties reorganized under a new company (Koll), but the defendants continued to deceive the plaintiffs about asset values and IPO prospects to induce further investment.

The trial judge awarded full compensatory damages to the plaintiffs.

On appeal, the court upheld liability for pre-June 2006 conduct but set aside liability for post-June 2006 conduct based on unpleaded fraudulent misrepresentation claims regarding IPO-related statements, while maintaining liability for wrongful garnishment of remaining Magellan funds.

Two purchasers of condominium units in Trump Tower sought to rescind their agreements of purchase and sale and recover their deposits based on material changes to a hotel unit maintenance agreement disclosed years after the initial purchase agreements.

The respondent developer argued that the purchasers' notices of rescission did not comply with statutory requirements because they used the word "terminate" rather than "rescind" and did not explicitly reference the relevant statutory provision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, holding that the Condominium Act, as consumer protection legislation, must be interpreted generously in favour of consumers.

The court found that the notices sufficiently conveyed the purchasers' intention to undo the transactions based on material changes, and that the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied to claims for return of deposits.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal of a partial summary judgment motion.

The appellants sought rescission of an agreement of purchase and sale and damages, with their claims being representative of 20 other similar outstanding actions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, awarding rescission to one appellant and damages to another (with calculation to be determined by the Superior Court).

The court addressed the costs of the partial summary judgment motions, considering offers to settle that included interest provisions and applied to multiple similar claims.

The court awarded costs to the appellants for the partial summary judgment motions while reducing the amount claimed due to the dismissal of motions against three individual defendants and the ongoing nature of the claims.

The vendor appealed a trial judgment finding that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale terminated on its own terms, entitling the purchasers to a return of their deposit.

The vendor argued the trial judge erred in finding time was not of the essence and in placing the onus on the vendor to set a new closing date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the original agreement lacked a time of the essence clause and the vendor failed to provide a revised occupancy statement or address the purchasers' concerns as promised.

The vendor was estopped from claiming the agreement was not at an end.

The appellants purchased luxury hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel based on financial estimates provided by the developer, Talon.

The estimates projected significant returns but were based on uninformed opinions and understated expenses.

The appellants sued for misrepresentation.

The motion judge dismissed their claims, finding their reliance on the estimates unreasonable and barred by entire agreement clauses.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that reliance was reasonable and it would be unconscionable to enforce the exculpatory clauses given Talon's evasion of Securities Act protections.

The Court ordered rescission for one appellant and damages for the other.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim relating to allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment.

The court applied the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) and found no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding that the fraud claims were adequately particularized against most defendants.

However, the court noted an oversight by the motion judge regarding one defendant, Loarn Metzen, and struck the pleadings against him with leave to amend.

The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant child care centre brought a motion to stay a Protection Order issued by the Director under the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, which suspended its operations due to alleged inappropriate infant feeding practices.

The Tribunal first determined it had the ancillary authority under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its home statute to grant an interim stay, despite the Act's silence on staying suspensions.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's business, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay because the appellant had already eliminated the imminent threat by suspending the involved staff and closing the infant room.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's bank statements, income tax records, and documents related to an alleged manicure business.

The respondent argued the applicant was moonlighting while claiming to be off work sick.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her banking statements for 2014 and 2015, finding them arguably relevant to post-termination income and the respondent's defence.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to produce pre-termination documents related to the manicure business or provide further submissions within 7 days.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to stay the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs had sued for fraudulent misappropriation of funds under a joint venture agreement, and the defendants argued the dispute fell within the agreement's arbitration clause.

The motion judge found the claim was essentially in fraud and not covered by the arbitration clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The appellant brought a motion on consent for a further stay of the Tribunal's order directing the Registrar to revoke their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal granted the stay on consent until June 15, 2015, the date of the appeal hearing at the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal also ordered on its own motion that the stay continue until the Divisional Court releases its decision.

The applicant, a minor, filed a human rights application through his father as litigation guardian.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the litigation guardian sought to be removed.

The Tribunal directed the litigation guardian to propose an alternate, but he confirmed that neither he nor an alternate would attend the hearing and that no alternate could be found.

As the minor applicant lacked legal capacity to continue the litigation without a litigation guardian, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's order revoking his registration pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The revocation was based on a criminal conviction for sexual assault and false answers on renewal applications.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the Tribunal's reliance on the criminal court's credibility findings while the conviction was under appeal.

The Tribunal also found the appellant would suffer irreparable harm through the loss of his business and home, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay as the risk to the public was speculative.

The motion was granted and a stay was issued for six months.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants, including the opposing party's law firm, for negligent misrepresentation regarding an equity raise condition in a loan agreement.

During discovery, the defendants sought communications between the plaintiffs and their own counsel, arguing that the plaintiffs' allegation of detrimental reliance constituted a deemed waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The Master upheld the privilege, but the appeal judge reversed, finding a deemed waiver.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, noting a conflict in the jurisprudence regarding whether alleging detrimental reliance equates to a waiver of privilege.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and its principals.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing extensive terms and conditions on the registrants regarding disclosure, record-keeping, consumer complaints, and mandatory education, in lieu of revocation.