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 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.

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 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 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.