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.

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 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.

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.