William S. Chalmers

The self-represented plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former lawyer and his law firm for misappropriation of trust funds.

The lawyer had directed the plaintiffs' mortgage loan proceeds to the firm's trust account despite knowing the firm was under investigation by the Law Society for a significant trust shortage.

The funds were subsequently withdrawn.

The court found the lawyer liable for civil fraud, awarded compensatory damages for the lost funds, and awarded $50,000 in punitive damages for his reprehensible conduct.

The court declined to declare that the judgment survives bankruptcy as premature.

The plaintiff, Zitia Developments (2010) Inc., brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property registered in the name of the defendant, Paul Halyk.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of the property, alleging it was purchased in trust for the corporation as part of a larger land assembly for commercial development.

The court found that the plaintiff established a triable interest in the land based on evidence of funding the downpayment and carrying costs.

Applying the Dhunna factors, the court concluded it was just and equitable to grant the CPL, noting the property's integration with the assembled lands and the risk of the plaintiff's claim becoming moot if the property were sold.

The court considered the appropriate penalty for PSP Services Inc.'s contempt of court for failing to cooperate with an audit as required by contract and court orders.

The court found repeated, prolonged, and unremedied contempt, and ordered the appointment of Ernst & Young as investigative receiver, required PSP to pay increased audit costs into court, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to Peoples Trust Company.

The applicant, Minotar Holdings Inc., sought a declaration that certain sections of the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 and the Greenbelt Act, 2005 violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by legislating a judicial outcome and depriving the Superior Court of its jurisdiction.

The court found that the amendments did not violate the Constitution, as the legislature has the authority to extinguish causes of action and define land use boundaries, provided it uses clear and explicit statutory language.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicants sought discharge of a $100,000 charge registered against residential property as security for a commercial lease guarantee after the lease had been assigned to a new tenant with replacement guarantors and replacement security.

The respondent landlord counter-applied for $145,205 in alleged repair and renovation costs said to arise from the outgoing tenant's obligations under a lease renewal agreement.

The court held that the proceeding could be determined by application because the dispositive issues turned on contractual interpretation and limitations, not contested material facts requiring a trial.

The court found the guarantors were released when the landlord approved the assignment and accepted replacement guarantors and security.

The landlord's repair claim was characterized as a contractual claim governed by the basic two-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, not the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act, and was therefore statute-barred.

The plaintiff, Peoples Trust Company, brought a motion for a finding that the defendant, PSP Services Inc., was in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders requiring cooperation with an audit and the deconversion process following the termination of their Acquiring Services and Sponsorship Agreement.

The court found that PSP intentionally frustrated and delayed the audit process, failed to comply with orders to provide documentation, and did not cooperate with the deconversion process.

The court found PSP liable for civil contempt, declined to appoint an investigative receiver at this stage, and reserved the issue of penalty and costs to a later hearing.

The plaintiff, 1438767 Ontario Inc., and the defendant, The Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), brought motions for summary judgment against Christina Giovinazzo, a former employee of the plaintiff.

Giovinazzo, acting as bookkeeper and office manager, perpetrated a fraudulent scheme from June 2014 to January 2021, creating fictitious payables and depositing $279,409.55 of the plaintiff's funds into her personal BNS account.

The plaintiff sought damages for civil fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

BNS sought damages on its crossclaim after settling with the plaintiff for $250,000.

Giovinazzo did not respond to the motions or attend the hearing.

The court found Giovinazzo liable for civil fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, awarding damages to the plaintiff for the remaining balance and to BNS for its settlement amount.

Punitive damages were awarded to the plaintiff, and the judgments were declared to survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act due to Giovinazzo's fiduciary capacity.

Substantial indemnity costs were also awarded to the plaintiff and BNS.

This endorsement addresses two consolidated applications concerning a condominium unit owner's persistent anti-social and harassing behaviour.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 sought an order compelling the unit owner to sell her unit due to her breach of a prior injunction.

Separately, other unit owners sought a permanent injunction to restrain the unit owner and her family from further harassing conduct.

The court found the unit owner in breach of the previous order, noting that complaints to regulatory bodies (LSO and HRTO) made by her and her family were not bona fide and constituted harassment.

The court granted the order compelling the sale of the unit, deeming it the only available remedy given the owner's continued unacceptable conduct.

A permanent injunction was also granted against the unit owner and her parents, prohibiting contact and further proceedings without leave of the court.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful applicants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, specifically Singa Bui, for misappropriation of loan funds while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

The plaintiffs sought damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and an order that the judgment debt survive any bankruptcy proceedings under s. 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, citing fraud and defalcation in a fiduciary role.

The court granted the default judgment, finding that the deemed admissions established breach of contract, fraud, misappropriation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court also ordered that the judgment debt would survive bankruptcy.

The defendants, who are lawyers, were previously found in civil contempt for failing to comply with a Mareva injunction and production orders related to the misappropriation of millions of dollars from their trust account.

During the two-month period provided to purge their contempt, the defendants failed to produce the required financial documents or account for the missing funds, and one defendant traveled to Europe despite a court order prohibiting travel.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was deliberate, for personal gain, and showed no remorse.

Both defendants were sentenced to 30 days of incarceration to serve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The applicants, a lawyer and her firm, sought judgment against the respondent for $564,707.47 plus interest and costs.

The applicants had paid this amount to discharge a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) lien on the respondent's property, which they had undertaken to clear during a property sale.

The respondent had previously provided incomplete lien discharge statements and refused to grant the applicants direct access to his CRA account, leading to the execution of a declaration and indemnity agreement.

The respondent argued the indemnity was ambiguous (contra proferentem) or that he did not understand its nature (non est factum), and alternatively, that unjust enrichment did not apply.

The court dismissed the respondent's arguments, finding the indemnity clear and applicable, and that the elements of unjust enrichment were met.

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicants.

The plaintiff, Nanny & Eldercare Services Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, Walsh Business & Tax Management Ltd. and Andrew Walsh, for misappropriation of $318,278.18 in funds intended for Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) remittances.

The defendants failed to file a statement of defence and were noted in default.

The court found the defendants liable for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty based on deemed admissions.

The judgment, totaling $441,863.26, was declared to survive any future bankruptcy under section 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act due to the fraudulent misappropriation of funds while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

The court also awarded $75,000 in punitive damages and full indemnity costs of $29,363.96 due to the egregious and high-handed conduct of the defendants, including their consistent lies to the court and failure to comply with multiple production orders.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a declaration that the defendant Gurmeet Singh was in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders regarding asset disclosure and financial information.

The court had previously found Mr. Singh in contempt.

In the penalty phase, which Mr. Singh failed to attend, the court ordered his defence struck and sentenced him to seven days incarceration in a provincial reformatory.

The court also awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to retain in trust the sale proceeds of real estate properties sold under power of sale by non-parties Surendra Walia and MGP Capital Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that the mortgages held by Walia and MGP were not legitimate and were part of a scheme by the defendant Gurmeet Singh to defraud creditors.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim that the mortgages were illegitimate.

The court affirmed that Mareva injunctions do not create proprietary interests and that secured creditors take priority over unsecured creditors.

Walia was permitted to disburse the sale proceeds in the usual course, while previously held funds ($400,000) remained in trust pending further order.

During pre-trial examinations in an Indigenous land claim, the plaintiff cross-examined the Crown's expert historian.

The Crown and Ontario objected to several questions, arguing they exceeded the expert's scope of expertise regarding pre-confederation Ontario land systems and strayed into Crown-Indigenous relations.

The court ruled on six objections, allowing questions that sought historical context for documents raised in chief, but sustaining objections to questions seeking opinions on matters outside the expert's specific research, such as the Indigenous perspective on the Crown's protective role.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a declaration of contempt against the defendant Gurmeet Singh for his persistent failure to comply with a Mareva injunction and subsequent court orders.

These orders required Singh to provide a sworn statement of his worldwide assets, a complete accounting of funds from lawsuits and insurance claims, disposal of properties, a list of debts, and documentation regarding the validity of certain mortgages.

Despite multiple opportunities and explanations from the court, Singh provided non-responsive or unsworn statements, failed to provide supporting documentation, and did not attend the contempt motion.

The court found Singh in contempt, satisfying the three elements (clear order, knowledge, intentional breach) beyond a reasonable doubt, and scheduled a penalty phase to determine the appropriate sentence.

The City of Toronto sought an order declaring Shane O’Herlihy a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act due to his persistent and abusive conduct during litigation.

This conduct included sending numerous threatening emails and voicemails to opposing counsel and their families, and filing excessive and irrelevant court documents.

The court granted the application, finding O’Herlihy's conduct to be vexatious and an abuse of process, and imposed strict conditions on his future ability to initiate or continue legal proceedings, including requiring leave of the court and representation by a licensed lawyer.

The court also awarded substantial costs against him for the dismissed actions.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings and dismiss the action due to the plaintiffs' abusive and vexatious conduct, including repeated breaches of court orders and failure to pay $145,000 in outstanding cost orders.

The court found the plaintiffs, particularly Andrew Rogerson (a self-represented barrister), had flagrantly disregarded court orders, delayed the action, and consumed excessive judicial resources.

Despite the minor plaintiff's claim, the court balanced the need for adjudication on merits against the undermining of justice.

The motion was granted, staying the action immediately, with a condition that pleadings would be struck and the action dismissed if the outstanding costs were not paid within 30 days.

The plaintiff, Clifton Blake Capital Corp., brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a $164,000 commitment fee from 10972827 Canada Inc. (109 Canada) following the non-completion of an $8.2 million loan transaction.

The plaintiff argued that 109 Canada unilaterally terminated the agreement, while the defendants claimed anticipatory breach by the plaintiff.

The court found that 109 Canada terminated the transaction and that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close.

Judgment was granted against 109 Canada for the commitment fee, adjusted for deposits.

The action against the personal and corporate guarantors was dismissed, as their guarantee was found to be conditional on the loan being advanced, which did not occur.

The defendants' counterclaim for damages related to obtaining new financing was also dismissed.

The defendants moved to transfer a complex civil action from Perth to Toronto and to assign it for case management.

The court found that the Perth courthouse lacked the necessary judicial resources to manage the case effectively, as evidenced by delays in hearing the defendants' motions.

Considering factors under Rule 13.1.02, including convenience for parties and witnesses, and the availability of case management facilities, the court determined that Toronto was a "clearly superior" venue.

The motion to transfer was granted, and the action was assigned for case management due to its complexity and anticipated need for court intervention.