Wade Morris

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement by counting disability-related absences as personal emergency leave days.

On the joint request of the parties, the Tribunal issued a consent order allowing the applicant to withdraw the application without prejudice to her right to bring a future section 34 application regarding the legal question of whether disability-related absences may be counted as personal emergency leave days.

The Tribunal's file was closed.

The defendants, Ludovico Minicucci and 2181860 Ontario Limited, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by Windrock Associates Ltd. for a success fee of $97,350.

Windrock claimed the fee was owed under an agreement for advisory services related to the purchase of a one-half interest in real property, or alternatively, under quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

The defendants argued that the agreement contravened the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 (REBBA) because Windrock was not registered under the Act, and therefore, the claim for remuneration was barred.

The court found that Windrock's services were "in connection with a trade in real estate" and that the success fee, calculated as a percentage of the sale price and conditional on the transaction closing, gave Windrock a direct pecuniary interest in the sale.

Consequently, the court held that Windrock's claims under the agreement, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment were all barred by section 9 of REBBA.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order requiring them to pay the respondent tenant $9,439.13 for a bad faith eviction.

The appellants argued the Board failed to articulate the legal test for bad faith and lacked an evidentiary record.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion of bad faith was a factual finding or a finding of mixed fact and law, which is not reviewable under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as appeals are restricted to questions of law.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board upholding an eviction notice.

The appellants argued that the Board erred in finding that the evidence of 'V.C.' was irrelevant because he was not an owner and could not have entered into a three-year lease.

They submitted that the definition of 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 includes any person who permits occupancy.

The appellants conceded that the Divisional Court could not grant the damages they sought, and that even if the matter were remitted for a re-hearing, the Board lacked jurisdiction to award those damages.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Application and cross‑application concerning the validity of a life insurance change‑of‑beneficiary form executed shortly before the insured’s death.

The applicant sought a declaration that the 2011 form reallocating most of the insurance proceeds to her was valid, or alternatively rectification of the form.

The court held the form was not a valid declaration under the Insurance Act because the allocation percentages were altered after signing and the applicant failed to prove the insured signed the form as altered.

The court also found numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the document, rebutting the presumption that the insured knew and approved its contents.

The applicant failed to establish knowledge and approval or that the form reflected the insured’s true testamentary intentions.

Following a successful application for rectification of the Land Titles Register to reflect a historical right-of-way, the applicant sought costs.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the registration omission resulted from an administrative error and because the applicant had not previously provided notice of reliance on the right-of-way registered under the Registry Act.

The court rejected these submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to its costs.

The applicant’s bill of costs was found to be fair and reasonable and was granted.

The applicant sought a declaration and rectification of title to reflect an express right of way over the respondent's servient lands that had been granted under the Registry Act but omitted from the servient parcel register when the lands were administratively converted to Land Titles.

The court held that the respondent acquired only LT Conversion Qualified title and was subject to the overriding interests preserved by s. 44(1) of the Land Titles Act, including easements, despite the omission from the servient register.

Relying on the statutory scheme and analogous authority concerning administrative conversion errors, the court found the right of way ought to have been noted and ordered rectification.

The order was made without prejudice to any future action alleging abandonment or extinguishment of the easement.

The plaintiff sought costs of $26,318.02 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully defeating the defendants' motion to stay the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The defendants did not dispute entitlement but argued the quantum was excessive, suggesting a range of $10,000 to $14,000.

The court found the time expended by the plaintiff was excessive for a partial indemnity award and fixed costs at $21,000 all inclusive.

The defendants brought a jurisdiction motion seeking to stay an Ontario action arising from a cross-border commercial relationship involving a Nigerian oil and gas opportunity.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the foundational agreements were made in Ontario and one agreement contained an Ontario governing law and attornment clause.

Applying the forum selection and forum non conveniens principles, the court found no rebuttal of the presumptive connecting factor and held that Nigeria was not clearly the more appropriate forum.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a contract for the supply and installation of doors and windows.

The appellant had refused to pay the balance owing, claiming the products were not Energy Star rated and that damage was caused during installation.

The deputy judge awarded the respondent the balance owing but set off an amount for damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the deputy judge's factual findings that the products were Energy Star rated, despite missing stickers, and that the damages awarded were appropriate.