Timothy J. Law

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a July 2, 2024 decision of Justice Black.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the single issue of whether the Anton Piller order was correctly enlarged to include the business and phone computer of one of the moving parties.

Leave to appeal on all other issues was dismissed.

The court also granted a stay of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the underlying order pending the appeal, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $120,000 based on a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and a Personal Guarantee.

The defendants argued the Guarantee lacked consideration, was invalid due to drafting errors, and that the JVA only required repayment if the project realized a profit.

They also contended that summary judgment was inappropriate for a simplified procedure action.

The court found the Guarantee valid, noting the plaintiff's reliance on it for her investment, and rejected the defendants' interpretation of the JVA based on the defendant's subsequent acknowledgments of the debt.

The court also found the corporate defendant unjustly enriched.

Summary judgment was deemed appropriate given the document-driven nature of the case and the undisputed material facts.

Two brothers co-owned a family cottage and entered into a co-ownership agreement without legal advice.

When the plaintiff sought to sell his share, a dispute arose over the interpretation and validity of the buy-sell provision.

The plaintiff applied to enforce the provision or alternatively for a sale under the Partition Act, while the defendant applied for rectification of the agreement to match an earlier draft.

The Superior Court of Justice found the buy-sell provision void for uncertainty as it constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The court dismissed the defendant's claim for rectification, finding no evidence of fraud or equivalent conduct.

Ultimately, the court ordered the sale of the property pursuant to the Partition Act and directed the net proceeds to be divided equally.

Two brothers filed competing applications regarding the buy-sell provision of a cottage co-ownership agreement.

One brother sought to enforce the written agreement, while the other sought rectification based on a prior draft.

The respondent argued the matter should proceed to trial due to factual disputes.

The court determined that the matter could not be resolved on a paper record due to conflicting evidence and credibility issues regarding the drafting and execution of the agreement.

The court ordered the applications consolidated and directed them to proceed to trial.

An international sale of goods dispute involving the purchase and delivery of frozen shrimp under a CIF contract.

The seller sought payment of the purchase price after the buyer refused to accept and pay for goods that could not clear Mexican customs.

The buyer argued the seller failed to provide proper import documentation and that the seller had a duty to mitigate by reselling the goods.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's judgment for the full purchase price plus prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 8%, finding that the duty to mitigate under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to actions for the price under Article 62, and that even if it did apply, the seller had taken reasonable mitigation measures given that the buyer retained title and possession of the goods.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for default judgment in an action for goods sold and delivered.

The plaintiff sued the defendant as an individual doing business as a sole proprietorship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statement of claim was not properly served.

Because the defendant was identified as an individual, personal service was required under Rule 16.02(1)(a), but the affidavit of service indicated the document was left with an unidentified person at a place of business.

The plaintiff, Solea International BVBA, was the successful party on a motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant, Bassett & Walker International Inc., opposed the substantial indemnity claim, arguing that Solea's offer to settle for the full claim amount was not a true "offer of compromise." The court found that Solea was entitled to rely on its offers and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of its offer.

The court also determined the calculation method for substantial indemnity costs for the second hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for the unpaid purchase price of a shipment of shrimp.

The Court of Appeal had previously directed a rehearing applying the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

The defendant argued it was entitled to avoid the contract due to a defective Health Certificate and that the plaintiff's acceptance of the returned shrimp mitigated damages or constituted unjust enrichment.

The court found the defendant did not properly declare the contract avoided under the CISG and that there was no agreement excusing payment of the purchase price upon the return of the goods.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the full purchase price plus 8% interest.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment holding it liable for the full unpaid purchase price of frozen shrimp ($228,604.50 US) plus prejudgment interest.

The dispute arose from a contract between a Toronto-based company and a Belgian seafood trader for the purchase of shrimp from an Ecuadorian supplier.

The motion judge determined liability under Ontario common law without addressing whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods applied.

The Court of Appeal found that the proper law of the contract was a threshold issue that should have been addressed, as the Convention applies to international sales of goods between parties in different contracting states.

The court set aside the summary judgment and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

Solea International BVBA (Solea) brought a motion for summary judgment against Bassett & Walker International Inc. (BWI) for payment of a shrimp shipment.

BWI disputed liability, claiming Solea failed to provide proper import documents (a valid health certificate) for Mexican customs.

Solea countered that BWI's own actions prevented importation and that BWI had acknowledged payment responsibility.

The court applied the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined there was no evidence of a deficient health certificate from Solea or that such a deficiency caused BWI's inability to import.

Instead, evidence suggested BWI failed to pay port fees.

The motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of Solea for $228,604.50 (U.S.), plus pre and post-judgment interest.

The appellant, Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO), appealed sentences imposed on the respondents for trust account violations under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The respondents had pleaded guilty to failing to deposit customer funds in a designated trust account within two banking days and failing to hold customer funds in trust until payment was made to suppliers or refunds provided to customers.

The trial judge imposed suspended sentences with probation and restitution orders of $25,000 each for the individual respondents, and probation for the corporate respondent.

TICO sought imprisonment or substantial fines.

The appellate court upheld the sentences for the individuals but found the corporate sentence manifestly unfit and imposed a $25,000 fine with two years to pay.

Following dismissal of a civil action after a three‑day trial, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff conceded entitlement to costs but argued that the amount claimed—approximately two‑thirds of the defendant’s actual legal fees—was excessive and proposed a lower award based on a percentage of actual costs.

The court held that costs awards are discretionary and not determined by applying a strict formula.

After reviewing the hours spent, allocation between counsel and clerks, and the rates charged, the court found the claimed amounts reasonable despite the issues being relatively straightforward.

The court awarded the full amount of costs requested by the defendant.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order continuing a Mareva injunction on the condition that it post $50,000 as security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that the judge erred by using section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act to order security for costs instead of the specific regime under Rule 56.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the judge had jurisdiction to impose the term under section 101 to do justice between the parties, especially given the plaintiff was an insolvent foreign resident whose undertaking as to damages was worthless.

The Ontario-resident plaintiffs purchased Mexican vacation packages from the defendant Sunwing in Ontario.

The plaintiffs suffered serious injuries in a bus accident in Mexico caused by the negligence of the driver.

The bus was operated by Best Day, a Mexican company contracted by Sunwing.

Best Day entered into indemnity agreements with Sunwing agreeing to Ontario jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sued Sunwing and Best Day in Ontario.

Best Day moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Best Day's appeal, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Ontario was the convenient forum.

The mortgagee appealed the trial judge's decision to reduce the interest rate on the mortgage and deny costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the mortgagee was entitled in law to the interest rate called for in the mortgage, and that delay in bringing the action within the limitation period did not justify a reduction.

The court also awarded costs of the trial and the appeal to the mortgagee, noting that success was no longer divided and the judgment exceeded the offer to settle.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing that the respondent fundamentally breached their contract by failing to invite the appellant to a conference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's conclusion that the exclusion did not deprive the appellant of substantially the whole benefit of the contract, which was primarily to increase sales through preferred supplier status.

The appellant sought a stay of an interlocutory injunction order restraining it from using the words 'Cricket Club' in its real estate development marketing, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for a stay, finding that the respondent had a very strong case on the merits for passing off, and would suffer irreparable harm through loss of control over its trade name if the stay were granted.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding an accounting between the parties arising out of a joint venture involving travel agencies.

The trial judge had reviewed disputed figures, accepted some from each party, and made credibility findings preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, noting the trial judge's detailed and even-handed assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim, arguing the trial judge erred in her factual findings.

The respondents cross-appealed, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted the phrase 'direct commission income' in a business purchase agreement's price adjustment formula.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were entitled to deference and her interpretation of the agreement was consistent with its language and the parties' reasonable expectations.

The appellant airline appealed the dismissal of its action alleging that a wholesale travel agency retained excessive commissions from the sale of tickets issued on the airline's ticket stock.

The appeal turned on the interpretation of the passenger sales agency agreement and the incorporated travel agent's handbook, particularly whether the agency was entitled to retain 7% or 9% of the full retail fare value.

The court held that the specific commission provision in Resolution 016a governed and fixed the commission at 9%, and that the agency in fact retained less than that amount.

As a result, there was no breach of contract and the appeal was dismissed with costs.