Zabihullah Yaqeen

Following dismissal of an appeal from a master's order requiring a corporate plaintiff to post security for costs, the court addressed a dispute concerning responsibility for the resulting costs award.

The individual plaintiff argued that only the corporate plaintiff should be liable because the appeal formally related to the corporate entity.

The court found that both plaintiffs had advanced the appeal jointly, shared interests in the litigation, and were represented together without distinction in the materials.

Given the joint strategy and unified presentation of claims, the costs order properly applied to both plaintiffs.

The court confirmed that both plaintiffs were jointly responsible for paying the $30,000 costs award to the defendants.

The purchaser of a dry cleaning business sought to rescind the purchase agreement, claiming a common mistake regarding the property's zoning.

The motion judge granted rescission, finding the parties shared a mistaken assumption that the business was a 'permitted use' under the zoning by-law.

The Court of Appeal allowed the vendor's appeal, holding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error.

The Court found no evidence of a shared assumption about the technical 'permitted use' status, noting the business operated as a legal non-conforming use.

The Court also held that the purchaser bore the risk of zoning issues under the principle of caveat emptor, as the agreement contained no zoning conditions.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that one plaintiff was a nominal party and that the corporate plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court held that the individual plaintiff was not a nominal plaintiff because he was personally a party to the alleged contract and asserted personal claims in the pleadings.

However, the corporate plaintiff failed to provide reliable financial disclosure demonstrating sufficient assets and had not produced basic financial records or tax filings.

Applying the established two‑step test for security for costs, the court found good reason to believe the corporation could not satisfy a costs order and exercised its discretion to order staged security.

Security of $120,000 for each set of defendants was ordered, payable in three installments tied to the litigation timetable.

The appellant challenged the validity of a municipal election in Ward 9 of the City of Toronto, arguing that 275 Voters' List Change Request Forms (VLCRFs) were invalid because they lacked an election official's signature.

The application judge declared the election invalid, but the Divisional Court overturned this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the substantive approach from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Opitz.

The Court held that the omission of the election official's signature was a procedural irregularity that did not compromise the voters' underlying entitlement to vote, and therefore did not affect the result of the election.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a $50,000 substantial indemnity costs order made after the parties reached a consent resolution on a relief from forfeiture application.

The court found the costs order was interlocutory, as the underlying consent order did not finally dispose of the parties' rights.

Leave to appeal was granted because there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order, particularly regarding the motions judge's reliance on untested affidavit evidence, the characterization of the tenant as the successful party, and the awarding of costs against a corporate officer personally.

The court also found the proposed appeal involved matters of general importance regarding costs awards following settlements.

Following a consent order restoring a commercial tenant to leased premises after a landlord lockout, the court determined the appropriate costs of the application.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondents engaged in aggressive and intimidating conduct, including unsupported allegations about the tenant’s business and delaying litigation steps.

The court held that the respondents’ conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding and warranted sanction.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 57.01 and the guidance in Boucher, the court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis but reduced the requested amount.

Costs of $50,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes were awarded to the applicant.

The defendant dentist sold his practice to the plaintiff and signed an agreement containing non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff obtained an interlocutory injunction enforcing the restrictive covenants and restraining the defendant from advertising in the Iranian media.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court denied leave to appeal the general injunction, finding no reason to doubt its correctness.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the order restraining advertising in the Iranian media, finding conflicting case law on whether general advertising constitutes solicitation and noting the issue's general importance to diverse communities.