Vladimira Martina Ivanov

The court considered an application by Place Laurier Limited for leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding the fair market value of land subject to a ground lease.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the correct legal test for determining the highest and best use of the land and did not provide sufficient reasons for the valuation.

The court found that while some issues raised extricable questions of law, the arbitrator had not erred in law and provided sufficient reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the insurer's denial of medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding he did not suffer from chronic pain, misapplied the AMA Guides, misapplied the pre-existing condition exception under s. 18(2) of the SABS, and breached procedural fairness by disregarding illegible clinical notes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were reasonable, it was entitled to weigh the expert medical evidence, and there was no breach of procedural fairness in a written hearing where the applicant provided illegible records.

The applicant, a nursing student, sought judicial review of a university Senate Appeals Committee decision upholding his failing grade in a clinical practicum.

The applicant was failed after completing only 52 of 419 required hours, shortly after raising concerns about his preceptor's standards of practice.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the evaluation, grade review, and appeal processes were procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

The university failed to follow its own syllabus, denied the applicant an opportunity to respond to credibility issues, and provided inadequate reasons.

The decisions were quashed and the matter remitted to the nursing school.

The appellant, Forest Meadows Developments Inc., appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent, Narges Shahrasebi, breached an Agreement for Purchase and Sale (APS).

The core issue was whether the respondent had represented that she would not be able to close on the extended closing date of October 29, 2019, which the appellant argued constituted anticipatory breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding of fact that no such representation was made, and therefore, there was no anticipatory breach or reasonable reliance by the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application to enforce a Buyer's Representation Agreement, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $38,293.35.

The applicants challenged the hourly rates, expert fees, and time claimed.

The court found the hourly rates and expert fees reasonable, but deducted time spent on case conferences related solely to the respondent's witnesses' availability.

The applicants were ordered to pay $35,000 in costs.

A real estate agent brought an application for a 2.5 percent commission on a property purchased by the respondent through another agent, relying on a Buyer's Representation Agreement (BRA).

The respondent brought a cross-application to declare the BRA void, raising the defence of non est factum.

The court found that the agent misrepresented the fundamental nature of the BRA to the respondent's father by stating it only applied to a specific property, not any property purchased within four months.

The court held the respondent was not careless in relying on her father's explanation and signing without reading.

The BRA was declared void ab initio and the agent's application was dismissed.

The appellants, who are self-represented lawyers, appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to set aside a Registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the appellants failed to meet any branch of the test to set aside the dismissal.

The court noted the appellants' near total abdication of their responsibility to move the case forward for many years, their failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and their failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

At a case management hearing, the court provided procedural directions for an upcoming two-day trial.

Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the respondent's father, residing in Ukraine, was unable to travel to Canada.

The court ordered a hybrid trial, allowing the father to testify via video while other witnesses would testify in person, subject to courtroom availability and pandemic restrictions.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedural and technological directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court provided instructions on the use of Zoom, electronic document filing via a drop box, hyperlinking in factums, and time allocations for oral argument.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation and disclosure of real estate transactions regarding a property he previously occupied.

The defendant second mortgagee brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against it and for a judicial sale of the property.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding damages were an adequate remedy and the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate a prior default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the action against it on the basis of res judicata and ordering a judicial sale of the property.

The applicant, a second mortgagee, sought to redeem and discharge two first mortgages held by the respondent.

The parties disputed the amounts required to discharge the mortgages.

For the first property, the court allowed the respondent to add $3,000 in legal costs from a separate summary judgment motion to the discharge amount, as permitted by the mortgage terms.

For the second property, the court found that the respondent had made bona fide errors in its initial discharge statement and was therefore not bound to accept the applicant's tendered payment.

Consequently, interest continued to accrue on the mortgage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, commenced in 2013, alleged improper solicitation of clients by former associates.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to show the deadline was missed through inadvertence, and did not move promptly to set aside the dismissal.

Furthermore, the court found actual prejudice to the defendants due to the loss of key evidence, specifically a mobile phone containing allegedly incriminating messages.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was dismissed.

The applicants, Saniia Agisheva and Andrii Grynyshyn (Grynyshyn shareholders), sought leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of Sunbex Corporation against the respondents, Dmitri Petrov, Natalia Lobanova, Alex Miadelets, Ventus Consulting Inc., and Midstream Infrastructure Protection Technologies Inc. (Petrov shareholders), alleging misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The respondents brought a cross-application for leave to bring a derivative action against the Grynyshyn shareholders for alleged warranty claims and misappropriation of funds.

The court granted the Grynyshyn shareholders' application, finding they met the four-part test for leave to commence a derivative action, demonstrating good faith and an arguable case in the corporation's interest.

The respondents' cross-application was dismissed, as their claims were found to be de minimis or more akin to a personal contractual dispute, and not in the best interests of the corporation.

The appellant, as second mortgagee, sought orders to discharge the respondent's first mortgages on two properties by paying money into court, pending resolution of disputes regarding the calculation of balances owing.

The application judge dismissed both applications and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on the substantive issues but remitted the matter to the Superior Court for amended applications to determine the disputed costs and charges.

The court clarified that section 12(3) of the Mortgages Act applies in limited circumstances and that mortgagors seeking to contest discharge statement items must bring applications under Rule 14.05(3)(e) with full particulars and evidence.

The costs award was quashed and referred to the judge hearing the amended applications.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for allegedly mistreating a special needs child during a behavioural outburst at a respite centre.

The incident was captured on video by a co-worker.

The College alleged verbal, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse.

During the hearing, the Committee ruled on several evidentiary issues, refusing to admit hearsay evidence from the co-worker who recorded the video and refusing to admit expert evidence proposed by the Member.

After reviewing the video and hearing testimony, the Committee found that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee accepted the Member's explanations that his actions, while perhaps not best practices, were attempts to de-escalate and manage the child's behaviour, not abuse.

The applicants sought an urgent interlocutory injunction or stay to prohibit an arbitrator from hearing further proceedings related to HST issues, pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal the arbitrator's award.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The court emphasized deference to the arbitrator's scheduling decisions and the limited scope for judicial intervention in arbitration matters, particularly when a party attempts to re-litigate issues or change positions taken during the arbitration.

The appellant signed an agreement for purchase and sale of real property as a buyer "in trust for a company to be incorporated without any personal liabilities" and provided a $100,000 deposit.

When the appellant advised the vendor that he would not close the transaction, the vendor refused to return the deposit.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the vendor, finding that the deposit was forfeited.

The appellant appealed, arguing that section 21(4) of the Business Corporations Act, which exempts pre-incorporation contract signatories from personal liability, should also exempt them from forfeiture of the deposit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a deposit stands as security for performance of the contract and is distinct from the purchaser's contractual obligations.

The court found that the phrase "without any personal liabilities" did not extend to the deposit, as the contract contained no express provision to that effect, and such a contrary intention must be expressly stated.

The applicants, engaged in combating government corruption in Malaysia, sought a Norwich Pharmacal order to compel financial institutions to produce confidential information about a Canadian real estate group.

The applicants suspected the group was funded by proceeds of foreign corruption and contemplated a private criminal prosecution for money laundering and receipt of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants lacked reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence had been committed, and that it would be inappropriate to use the court's inherent civil jurisdiction to bypass the careful balance struck by Parliament in the Criminal Code for criminal investigations and private prosecutions.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice conditionally approving a third-party litigation funding agreement for a proposed class action.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and thus only appealable to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal held that the conditional approval order was interlocutory, not final, because it did not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties.

The order merely conditioned approval on amendments to the funding agreement; failure to amend resulted in dismissal of the approval motion, not from the order itself.

The appeal was quashed.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The member engaged in boundary violations by meeting alone with a student and exchanging inappropriate text messages with another student.

The member also misused sick days to attend conferences for his personal business, solicited students and parents for his business, and disclosed confidential information about a student.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of courses on boundaries and professional ethics.