Zachary Zvi Silverberg

The plaintiff, GTA Fill Earthworks Inc., sought damages for breaches of verbal contracts against the defendants, Anthony Ulbrick and 2611635 Ontario Corporation.

The defendants were noted in default, leading to an undefended trial to assess liability and damages.

The court found Mr. Ulbrick liable for various breaches, including failure to pay a subcontractor, misdirection of invoices, and overpayment.

The corporate defendant was found jointly and severally liable for unjust enrichment related to the misdirected invoices.

The court also awarded punitive damages against both defendants for their deliberate and concealed misconduct.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the project lands after rescinding their Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APSs) under the Condominium Act and demanding the return of their deposits.

The defendants refused, relying on terms in prior Reservation Agreements.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim to a constructive trust in the lands, given the defendants' use of deposit funds and uncertain solvency.

The court also determined that the APS clause prohibiting registration did not bar the CPL, as the rescission rendered the APS void and the CPL was sought on constructive trust grounds.

The motion for a CPL was granted.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to compel the three defendants to deliver further and better affidavits of documents and to provide access to their computer hard drives to search for relevant documents.

The underlying action involves allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding structural damage to the plaintiff's vehicle following a collision.

The court dismissed the motion against two defendants, finding no evidence that documents were withheld or intentionally deleted.

The motion against the insurer was partially granted, requiring it to produce an event log and an itemized list of documents claimed as privileged, but the request to inspect its hard drive was denied.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents, Mandeep Dhatt and Kulwinder Dhatt, fixed at $8,200, and to the third party respondents, Jay Brijpaul and Re/Max West Realty Inc., Brokerage, fixed at $6,700.

Both amounts were inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The purchase price under the agreement of purchase and sale dated January 22, 2016, was to be reduced by the amount of these costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Belobaba dated October 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties, the plaintiffs, fixed in the amount of $35,000.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal brought by the defendants (appellants) challenging a trial judge's decision to grant specific performance of a real estate agreement and award substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in refusing multiple adjournment requests, including those based on medical grounds, and in granting specific performance for a property they claimed was not unique.

The Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding adjournments, citing the appellants' history of non-compliance with court orders and lack of diligence.

It also affirmed that specific performance is not an "extraordinary remedy" and that the trial judge correctly applied the factors for its award, including the property's unique qualities and the inadequacy of damages.

The substantial indemnity costs award was also upheld due to the appellants' litigation misconduct.

The successful purchasers in a specific performance action moved to expedite the vendors' appeals, require security for costs, and lift the stay of the trial judge's cost order.

A non-party law firm, acting as an execution creditor, moved to intervene and delay the purchasers' motion pending a priority dispute in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to expedite the appeals, noting the purchasers withdrew their other requests.

The intervention motion was dismissed, as the priority dispute among creditors was properly a matter for the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellants moved for a stay of a trial judgment ordering specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale and requiring them to vacate the property.

The trial proceeded largely in their absence after their requests for an adjournment were denied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while the appeal raised a serious question regarding the refusal to adjourn, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the respondents' undertaking not to deal with the property pending the appeal.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenants for unpaid rent and property taxes under a commercial lease for a golf driving range.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging the landlord breached an oral agreement to finance and build a year-round deck structure, and breached the duty of good faith by orchestrating their default.

The court found that the parol evidence rule did not bar consideration of unsigned collateral agreements, but concluded the evidence did not support the defendants' claim that the landlord promised to pay for the deck.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded $63,000 for unpaid rent and taxes.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal, while the defendant employer claimed the plaintiff had resigned.

The court found that the plaintiff was terminated, as his conduct did not objectively reflect a clear and unequivocal intention to resign.

The court awarded a nine-month notice period, unpaid vacation pay, health benefits expenses, and damages for lost bonuses, finding the bonus was an integral part of compensation.

The plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

Two competing class actions were filed following a six-alarm electrical fire that displaced hundreds of tenants at 650 Parliament Street.

The court heard a carriage motion to determine which law firm should proceed.

Finding both firms equally qualified and prepared, the court awarded carriage to the Strosberg/Charney consortium in the Chu action based on their fee arrangement, which would result in a significantly larger net recovery for the class members compared to the competing firm's fixed fee and third-party funding arrangement.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing an appeal by the Estate of Gabriel Zimmerman regarding its entitlement to be added as a party to the underlying action.

The court determined the costs payable by the respondents to both the Estate and the defendants for the motion heard in the lower court.

The Estate was awarded its actual partial indemnity costs, and the defendants were also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis despite not participating in the appeal, as they benefited from the appellate decision.

Two shareholders of a holding company that owns a commercial property brought an action against defendants for their full share of annual rental income.

The property manager held back part of the funds based on acknowledgements allegedly signed by the shareholders in 2002, which purported to give a deceased property manager a 25% interest in their entitlements.

The defendants moved to add the estate of the deceased manager as a necessary party.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the estate's claim was statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the estate's claim was not statute barred because the defendants never pleaded a limitations defence and had in fact invited the estate to assert its claim.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding the individual appellant personally liable for a breach of contract regarding kitchen cabinetry work.

The trial judge had found that the contract was with the corporate appellant, but held the individual appellant personally liable because the corporate name was misspelled on the contract and the individual had claimed for the balance of the contract in his own name in a cross-claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by piercing the corporate veil without evidence of fraudulent or improper conduct, and by drawing an improper inference from the pleadings that contradicted his own factual findings.