Tom Arndt

The parties brought cross-motions regarding refusals and undertakings from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff sought to compel answers from the defendants and the Attorney General, while the Attorney General sought to compel answers from the plaintiff, clarify the scope of the pleadings, and obtain foundational information for the plaintiff's expert report.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce a refused sales graph, amend its pleadings to clarify the temporal scope and damages claim, and provide the foundational information for its expert report.

The plaintiff's motion against the Attorney General was dismissed, as the court found the undertaking regarding correspondence with U.S. regulators was adequately answered.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned in accordance with its Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests.

The plaintiff brought a motion to exclude the defendants from her examination for discovery, alleging she would be intimidated by their presence due to a history of domestic abuse by her former spouse, one of the defendants.

The court found the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence of assault supported her claim of intimidation regarding her former spouse and his brother, who lived in the same residence during the abuse.

The motion was granted in part, excluding the former spouse and his brother, but dismissing the request to exclude a third defendant due to a lack of specific evidence.

The appellants appealed orders of the trial judge finding fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionability in relation to three shareholders' agreements.

The appellants argued that rescission was only justified for the first agreement based on fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the fraudulent misrepresentation justified rescission of all three agreements, and alternatively, that the second and third agreements were unconscionable and therefore also subject to rescission.

The court also rejected arguments regarding contract interpretation and procedural fairness.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The parties attended a case conference regarding the plaintiff's summary judgment motion.

The defendants raised issues with the plaintiff's materials, including the need for certified translations of Spanish documents and potential defects in the commissioning of an affidavit.

The court directed the plaintiff to provide certified translations and correct certain exhibits.

The court also directed the parties to schedule a three-hour hearing to address the defendants' anticipated motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit and to strike the statement of claim for failure to pay an outstanding costs award.

The plaintiff requested authorization via teleconference to sign back an offer to purchase a disputed property.

The property was listed at $249,000 and an offer of $180,000 was received.

The plaintiff sought to counteroffer at $225,000 without disclosing the offeror's identity to the defendant, fearing interference.

The court authorized the plaintiff to sign back the offer at $225,000 or lower, provided that any resulting agreement of purchase and sale remains subject to court approval where the purchaser's identity must be disclosed.

The plaintiff buyer failed to close a $75 million commercial real estate transaction and subsequently registered a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the property.

A Master ordered the CPL discharged and the buyer's deposits forfeited.

The buyer appealed and brought a motion to stay the Master's order pending appeal, while the sellers brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the appeal devoid of merit as the buyer had failed to secure financing and the sellers had not waived the 'time is of the essence' clause.

The cross-motion for security for costs was granted.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff recovered her deposit on a failed condominium purchase, the plaintiff sought costs of $483,236 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff's Rule 49 offers did not contain a clear, understandable compromise, disentitling her to substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court noted the plaintiff's scattergun approach, unnecessary proceedings, and excessive billing.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $225,000, reflecting a fair and reasonable amount the defendant could expect to pay.

During case management for an anticipated summary judgment motion in a construction-related dispute, the plaintiff faced delays producing documents due to the deaths of individuals involved and the fact that many relevant records were held by contractors, subcontractors, and third-party service providers.

The court ordered the plaintiff to use its best efforts to obtain and produce relevant documents by a specified deadline.

The court emphasized that voluntary cooperation by non-parties would avoid formal motions for non-party production and potential cost consequences.

A further case conference was directed to schedule cross-examinations or any required non-party production motions.

Supplementary reasons addressing implementation and costs following an appeal decision regarding a condominium dispute.

The court ordered a trial of an issue to determine the difference in value between a two-storey and three-storey townhouse unit.

The court denied prejudgment interest on the valuation amount, finding the loss crystallized on the date of the appeal decision.

The court also allocated trial and appeal costs among the parties, applying modified Sanderson orders to account for successful and unsuccessful claims against various defendants.

The appellant purchased a condominium townhouse advertised as three storeys, but later discovered the third floor was illegally built into the common element attic space.

She sued the condominium corporation, the property manager, her real estate lawyers, and the vendor.

The Court of Appeal held that the condominium corporation was liable for negligent misstatement for issuing a clean estoppel certificate despite the illegal third floor.

The court upheld the finding of solicitor negligence against the appellant's real estate lawyers for failing to review the vertical survey plans.

Damages were reassessed to compensate the appellant for the lost opportunity of owning a three-storey unit, and punitive damages against the vendor were upheld.

Following the respondents’ successful defence of a motion for injunctive and related relief, the court was required to fix costs after the parties failed to agree.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $114,000, alleging that the applicants’ conduct was reprehensible and that a settlement offer justified enhanced costs under Rule 49.

The court held that the settlement offer was not timely and that the applicants’ conduct did not meet the high threshold for substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court concluded the motion was relatively straightforward and that the respondents’ use of multiple counsel was unnecessary.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $50,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, HST, and earlier costs awarded in the cause.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction preventing a neighbouring condominium developer from installing translucent panels on the west wall of a nearly completed building.

The applicant alleged the design breached a negative covenant allegedly agreed upon during planning approval discussions that the wall would contain no windows.

Applying the test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried and provided no evidence of irreparable harm, particularly in the absence of expert evidence regarding impacts on future redevelopment or privacy.

The court also found the balance of convenience strongly favoured the developer because construction was substantially complete and the applicant had delayed unreasonably in bringing the motion.

The delay and resulting prejudice supported the equitable defence of laches.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff’s claim under s. 9 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the consulting agreement was an unlicensed real estate brokerage commission relating to the sale of a physiotherapy business.

The plaintiff asserted the transaction primarily involved the transfer of OHIP licences rather than the sale of a business.

The court held the characterization of the transaction involved disputed facts and mixed elements potentially inside and outside REBBA.

Because the applicability of REBBA was not clear and the evidentiary record was incomplete, a discretionary stay would be inappropriate.

The alternative argument that the claim was premature was also rejected.