Ted Evangelidis

The plaintiff corporation, 1316223 Ontario Inc. (operating as 1,000,000 Comix), brought a motion for the interim recovery of inventory from the defendant, Kostas Giancoulas, or, in the alternative, for its preservation.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for a mandatory order to return inventory to him, asserting personal ownership and seeking to pierce the corporate veil.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for interim recovery due to insufficient description and valuation of the property.

The defendant's cross-motion was also dismissed, as he failed to establish a strong prima facie case for ownership or grounds to pierce the corporate veil.

However, the court granted the plaintiff's alternative request for an interim preservation order, requiring the defendant to preserve all inventory in his possession pending trial, recognizing the significant financial claims against the business.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory injunction enforcing a restrictive covenant in a commercial lease that prevented the landlord from leasing space to competitors of the respondent's payday loan business.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the lease, finding the appellant was not a financing institution, assessing irreparable harm, and ignoring delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contractual interpretation and no error in principle in the exercise of discretion regarding the injunction.

The appellant purchased a second mortgage as an investment, but the mortgagor fraudulently misrepresented the balance of the first mortgage.

After the property was sold under power of sale, leaving no funds for the appellant, she sued the mortgage broker for negligence and breach of contract, and the title insurer for coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the action.

The court found the title insurance policy did not cover the loss, and the claim against the broker was statute-barred because it was discovered more than two years before the action was commenced.

The court clarified that the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, rather than the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act, because the claim was based in negligence and contract rather than an interest in land.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action against both defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs relying on Rule 49 settlement offers and the complexity of the litigation.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the result obtained, the conduct of the parties, and the offers to settle.

Although the defendants had made settlement offers and were fully successful, the court found no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Exercising its discretion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff at $30,000 to one defendant and $18,000 to the other.