|
|
- notable cases
[ 2008 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004
| 2003 | 2002
2001 | 2000 ]
[ 1999 | 1998
| 1997 | 1996
1995 | 1994
| 1992
| 1990 ]
2008
| 1657575 Ontario Inc. v. Hamilton (City) |
(James Wortzman)
(Karey Anne Dhirani) |
| 2008 (Ont. C.A.) |
O.J. No. 3016 |
Click
here for details |
This was an appeal by 1657575 Ontario Inc. operating as Pleasures Gentlement's Club ("Appellant")
from a decision by the Divisional Court dismissing its application to judicially review the City
of Hamilton Licensing Committee's recommendation and City Council's resolution to revoke the Appellant's
licences to operate its adult entertainment business.
The Appellant and its related corporation intended to open 2 adult entertainment parlours
concurrently in the City of Hamilton to benefit from the economies of scale. The Appellant
received its first licence from the City of Hamilton to operate its adult entertainment business
in 2004 and sought the necessary government approvals to open its second location. The Appellant
finally received its second licence in March 2006. During this time the City had passed a bylaw
to reduce adult entertainment parlors from 4 to 2. The City could do this as long as it abided
by its by-laws and the common law. Instead, the City took advantage of the opportunity that the
Appellant had yet to open its businesses and moved to revoke both of its licences.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the Appellant's license. The Court held
that the City did not comply with the procedural safeguards set out in its own bylaw in
recommending the revocation of Appellant's licence, and in failing to do so, breached its duty
to treat the Appellant fairly and provide proper disclosure. The Court also concluded that the
City's failure to provide proper disclosure tainted the hearing from the outset and denied the
Appellant its right to a fair hearing and therefore quashed the licensing Committee's
recommendation to revoke the Appellant’s license. |
| Purebred Beverages Inc. v. Cott Corp. |
(James Wortzman) |
| 2008 (Ont. Master) |
O.J. No. 5569 |
Click
here for details |
In this case, the Plaintiff brought an action against the Defendant for breach of contract,
breach of confidence, misappropriation of confidential information, misappropriation of a business
opportunity, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff alleged that it entered into discussions
with the Defendants in relation to a venture for the development of a vitamin enriched water product
for pets. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants refused the venture but, later, developed and
marketed the product.
The Defendant’s motion for security for costs against the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground
that the Defendants failed to establish the Plaintiff's financial circumstances or insufficiency
of assets. The Court held that the factors relied upon by the Defendants must be more than a hunch
or a concern and something more must be placed before the court such that the court could accept
the concern to be genuine. |
2006
| Coe. v. Meade |
(Robert L. Colson) |
| 2006 (Ont. C.A.) |
[2006] O.J. |
Click here for details |
Coe was granted leave to commence a derivative claim on his own behalf and on behalf of Across-Canada Destination Services
against Karen Meade, a fellow shareholder of Across-Canada, by order of Madam Justice Greer. Justice Greer also awarded
Coe his costs which she fixed at $36,817.
Meade appealled the costs award as well as Justice Greer's refusal to grant Meade security for her costs of both the application to
commence the derivative claim and the intended action itself.
Robert Colson represented Mr. Coe. Ms. Meade's appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Coe was awarded a further $10,000 in costs in connection with the appeal. |
| 364511 Ontario Ltd. v. Darena Holdings Ltd. |
(James Wortzman) |
| 2006 (Ont. C.A.) |
O.J. No. 3713 |
Click
here for details |
|
This was an appeal by the Appellant from a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.
This commercial rental dispute was commenced in 1995 by the lessee (Appellant). After a
long and complex litigation, judgment was obtained against the lessor, Darena Holdings.
However, when the judgment debtor was unable to pay, the lessee commenced the second action,
adding seven defendants including the Respondent and alleging conversion or interference with
economic relations. On a motion for summary judgment to the Superior Court of Justice, the
Respondent successfully obtained judgment dismissing the Appellant's action. On appeal,
the Respondent again successfully defended the Superior Court’s decision on the basis that
the Appellant had failed to demonstrate there was a genuine issue for trial. |
2005
| 1239745 Ontario Ltd. v. Bank of America Canada |
(Martin Teplitsky) |
| 2005 (Ont. C.A.) |
[2005] O.J. No. 920 |
Click here for details |
|
This was an appeal by 1239745 Ontario from a decision by a Motions Judge allowing a motion by Bank
of America Canada and Royal Bank to strike out 1239745's reply to a demand for particulars and for an
order declaring that 1239745 had no triable issue against Bank of America Canada. The Court found the
Motions Judge did not ask whether the banks had shown that it was plain and obvious that 1239745's
claim for economic duress would fail and therefore the appeal was allowed. |
| Canada Customs & Revenue Agency v. Artistic Ideas Inc. |
(Martin Teplitsky) |
| 2005 (Fed. C.A.) |
2005 FCA 68 |
Click here for details |
|
During the course of an audit of the applicant, Artistic Ideas Inc., the Minister served a requirement to
provide documents and information pursuant to s. 231.2(1) of Income Tax Act, which included
provisions of names and addresses of donors and charities. The applicant agreed to provide all
information, except it refused to provide names and addresses of donors and charities without prior
judicial authorization. The Federal Court Judge concluded that the Minister was only entitled to
demand names of donors by obtaining prior judicial authorization. The Minister appealed, and the
appeal was dismissed. |
| GMAC Leaseco v. 1348259 Ontario Ltd. |
(Robert Colson) |
| 2005 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
2005 CarswellOnt 4397 |
Click here for details |
|
Midtown Motors Ltd. sought judgment in accordance with the terms of settlement agreed upon in writing by GMAC and Midtown
and a declaration that the Indemnity Agreement between GMAC and Midtown was valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeal
found that the proposed appeal involved matters of public importance relevant to the development of the law and the administration
of justice and leave to appeal was granted. |
| Entral Group International Inc. v. 1438762 Ontario Inc. |
(James Wortzman)
(Michael Gayed) |
| 2005 Ontario Master |
[2005] O.J. No. 2140 |
Click here for details |
|
This was an application by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action. The plaintiff, TC Worldwide, held an exclusive
licence in Canada and the United States, granted by seven Hong Kong-based record companies, regarding the
distribution of the karaoke version of hundreds of their music videos. The other plaintiff, Entral Group, claimed that it
held the exclusive sub-licence for Canada. The plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement and for other economic torts.
The defendants submitted that the action did not comply with the requirements of the Copyright Act because the
action was commenced by the licensees and not by the record company owners. The action was stayed until the
record companies were added as parties. |
| I. Young & Co. v. Magee |
(James Wortzman)
(Karey Anne Dhirani) |
| 2005 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2005] O.J. No. 2557 |
Click here for details |
|
I. Young & Company commenced an action against the defendant for $75,831 owed under a contract for landscaping services.
The original agreement and estimate stated that the company was not sure what the work would entail, and provided a range of
possible costs. The work billed for in the invoice was different from what the original estimate stated. The company continued to
work because the defendant promised that payments would be made. Work, however, eventually stopped because the
company's out-of-pocket expenses were getting too high. The company was awarded $76,831, which included $1,000 for
repairs done by the company to the pool at the request of Magee, for which the company was promised an additional
$1,000 payment. |
| Penwest Development Corp. Ltd. v. Youthdale Ltd. |
(James Wortzman) |
| 2005 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
O.J. No. 4900 |
Click here for details |
In this case, the Plaintiff, Penwest Development Corp. Ltd, owns and operates the Bond
Place Hotel at 60 Dundas Street East in the City of Toronto. The Defendant, Youthdale Ltd.,
has owned lands to the immediate south of the hotel and leased the lands as a parking lot.
In 2000, the Defendant erected a chain link fence on the Plaintiff's property. The new fence
and the existing bumper guardrail effectively barred the Plaintiff from accessing the area.
The Plaintiff brought an application for declaration that the Defendant encroached on its property,
the Defendant counter claimed for adverse possession. In dismissing the counter claim, the Court
held that the Defendant failed to satisfy the court that it had exclusive possession for 10 years.
The Court also ordered the Defendant to remove all fences and bumper guardrails at its own expense
and to repair any resulting damage to the Plaintiff's property. |
| Silgold Developments Inc. v. RRL Burloak Inc. |
(James Wortzman) |
| 2005 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
O.J. No. 6016 |
|
|
This was an application by Silgold Developments Inc. ("Silgold") for leave to judicially review the
Ontario Municipal Board's ("Board") decision permitting the City of Oakville council’s decision
to stand in support RRL Burloak Inc.’s ("RRLB") plan for development. Silgold and RRLB are
developers with land holdings in Oakville. In 2003, Silgold appeared before the Board to
dispute Oakville council's decision permitting RRLB to develop a "big box" retail centre in Oakville.
Silgold also sought to adjourn the hearing to permit it to also file development application.
The Board refused to adjourn the hearing. On the motion for leave to appeal the Board's decision,
the Superior Court of Justice showed deference to the Board's expertise and refused to grant Silgold
with leave to appeal. |
| Wiengerl v. Seo |
(James Wortzman)
|
| 2005 (Ont. C.A.) |
256 D.L.R. (4th) 1 |
Click here for details |
|
In this case, a jury found a private health care clinic and an ultrasound technician liable
for damages arising from sexual assault and found the clinic vicariously liable for the sexual
battery committed by the technician. The clinic appealed and the Court of Appeal set aside the
finding of negligence against the clinic but upheld the finding of vicarious liability and the
amount awarded for future care costs. The Court reduced the quantum of damages awarded by the
jury and found the clinic liable for the general and aggravated damages arising from the technician's
conduct. |
2004
| Chann v. RBC Dominion Securities |
(Robert Colson) |
| 2004 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2004] O.J. No. 5340 |
|
|
The plaintiff, Chann, was employed by the defendant, RBC Dominion Securities Inc. as an investment
banker. His employment was terminated without cause and he was offered settlement package which
consisted in part of $125,000 as discretionary cash bonus and $200,000 as pay in lieu of reasonable
notice. Chann refused the settlement offer and brought action against RBC Dominion Securities Inc.
for wrongful dismissal. The Court found that RBC Securities Inc. did not exercise its discretion fairly
and reasonably in awarding Chann a discretionary cash bonus of $125,000 for the 2002 fiscal year. |
| CSFY Inc. v. Creit Management Ltd. |
(Jonathan Kulathungam) |
| 2004 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2003] O.J. No. 3473 |
|
|
The existence of two “dollar stores” in the same Springdale Shopping Centre spawned this litigation.
The plaintiff, CSFY Inc., filed a motion for an injunction to restrain the operation of a competing
business in the same mall on the basis of a restrictive covenant in a lease. The motion was
dismissed, as the agreement between Creit and First Professional, which explicitly stated that
nothing in the agreement shall be construed to make the parties joint venturers, was dispositive
of the issue. |
2003
| Concept Source Management Inc. v. Affinity Health |
(Martin Teplitsky) |
| 2003 (Ont. C.A.) |
[2003] O.J. No. 4156 |
Click here for details |
|
After hearing arguments it was clear to the Court that there was a factual dispute. The Court allowed Concept Source
Management’s appeal and directed that there be a new trial on the alleged breach of the guarantee and the
resulting damages. |
| University Health Network v. Made in Japan Japanese Restaurants Inc. |
(Ian Roher) |
| 2003 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2003] O.J. No. 2026 |
Click here for details |
|
University Health Network, the operator of the Toronto Western Hospital, leased the food court in the hospital to
Made In Japan and Mrs. Vanelli's for a five-year term. Made In Japan and Mrs. Vanelli's sublet their food court premises to franchisees. For
numerous reasons, the businesses failed within eight months of execution of the head leases. The Court found
the real issue to be determined in both the application and the action was to determine the responsibility for the
premature failure of the business. |
| Kushnir v. Lowry |
(Harvin Pitch) |
| 2003 (Ont. C.A.) |
[2003] O.J. No. 4092 |
|
|
This was an appeal from a lower court decision finding that there was no existing agreement between
Ms. Kushnir and Mr. Pape. The Court allowed the appeal, finding that as a result of a letter of October 3,
2001 and a voice-mail message of October 5, 2001, there was a concluded agreement between Ms. Kushnir
and Mr. Pape that Ms. Kushnir would pay Mr. Pape's account in accordance with the terms of the letter. The
petitioner was ordered to pay the appellant $32,384.87 and costs. |
| Radziwilko v. Seef Estate |
(Harvin Pitch)
(Matthew Sokolsky) |
| 2003 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2003] O.J. No. 3390 |
Click here for details |
|
The issue in this case was whether the applicant, Iwona Radziwilko, was a dependant entitled to receive
support from the estate of Samir Seef. The Court found that based on the facts, Iwona was a dependant of
Samir for the purposes of the Succession Law Reform Act. |
| Risorto et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company |
(Harvin Pitch) |
| 2003 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2002] C.C.S. No. 20226 |
|
|
The defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, moved for summary judgment to
dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs in an intended class proceeding which alleged defective automobile repairs.
The defendant argued that the claims were barred because they were commenced more than one year
after the happening of the loss or one year after the repair or completion dates. The plaintiffs, however
argued that the discoverability principle operated to bring the claims within the limitation period. The
Court found that the discoverabiltiy rule did apply and the motion was dismissed. |
| Sokolsky v. Canada 3000 Airlines Ltd. |
(Matthew Sokolsky) |
| 2003 (Ont. S.C.J.) (Divisional Court) |
[2003] O.J. No. 3920 |
|
|
This was an appeal from a judgment awarding Sokolosky damages for breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, and awarding them costs. The plaintiff had purchased an all inclusive travel package
through the defendant travel agency. The appeal was dismissed, as there was nothing on the record
indicating that the trial judge had committed a material error. The court had accepted the respondent's
testimony that the hotel conditions were sub-standard, and that the appellant's representative had been
negligent in his representations. |
| Wiengerl v. Seo |
(James Wortzman)
(Jonathan Kulathungam) |
| 2003 (Ont. C.A.) |
|
|
In this case, the Plaintiff sued a private health care clinic and an ultrasound technician
for damages arising from sexual assault committed against the Plaintiff at a time when the
clinic was undergoing renovations and utilizing temporary changing rooms. The jury found
negligence awarded a total of $224,700.32 in general and special damages against both
Defendants and an additional $25,000 against the technician and $175,000 against the
clinic in aggravated damages.
The finding of negligence against the clinic was reversed on appeal and the quantum of
damages was reduced (see above). |
2002
| 364511 Ontario Ltd. v. Darena Holdings Ltd. |
(James Wortzman)
(Jonathan Kulathungam) |
| 2002 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2002] C.C.S. No. 10287 |
Click here for details |
|
This was an application by 364511 Ontario for leave to appeal a decision that struck out its amended
statement of claim. At trial, 364511 Ontario sued for the return of a deposit paid under an offer to lease
commercial premises, and the three defendants were found liable at trial. However, the judgment was
set aside against two of the defendants. Leave to appeal was granted, as the Court found that there
was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order. |
| Montreal & Canadian Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia Inc. v. Protection of the Holy Virgin Russian Orthodox Church (Outside of Russia) in Ottawa Inc. |
(James Wortzman)
(Jonathan Kulathungam) |
| 2002 (Ont. C.A.) |
30 B.L.R. (3d) 315 |
Click here for details |
|
This was an appeal by the interveners from a decision of the Superior Court of Justice. In 1999,
the Holy Virgin Church, a parish within the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia ("ROCOR"),
passed a resolution to change its by-laws and letters of patent to redirect its allegiance from
the ROCOR to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Normal Parish Bylaws and the Supplementary Bylaw provide
for different procedures to amend a by-law. The lower court found the resolution was not passed
in compliance with the requirements of the church bylaws and declared it invalid. Further, the court
ordered that a general meeting of the Holy Virgin Church be called to elect a new Board of Directors.
The parties wishing to change affiliation appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the resolution was
governed by the provision in the Normal Parish Bylaws but set aside the order for a general meeting
to elect new directors. The Court found it was not a proper exercise of discretion under s. 106 of
the Canada Corporations Act to order a meeting for the purpose of placing control of the
entity in the hands of one or two or more opposing factions. |
2001
| McCoy v. McLaren, Morris & Todd |
(Robert Colson) |
| 2001 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2001] O.J. No. 18 |
|
|
From late 1997 until June 1998, McCoy’s commissions dropped, and he ran a deficit of commissions
totalling $22,045. As a result, McLaren advised McCoy that his draw against commission was reduced
to $760 per week. McCoy retained a lawyer, who wrote to McLaren alleging that McCoy had been
constructively dismissed. The Court dismissed the action and found that McLaren was entitled to
change the amount of the draw on commission in light of McCoy's diminished performance. |
| Empress Plaza Inc. v. Mmmuffins Canada Corp. |
(Ian Roher) |
| 2001 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2001] O.J. No. 4022 |
|
|
Mmmuffins, the defendant, sought leave to amend the statement of defence by pleading a specific
settlement offer in addition to the general assertion that the plaintiff, Empress Plaza, failed to mitigate.
Empress Plaza's solicitor was examined on discovery, and only after giving evidence with
respect to Empress's settlement position did the solicitor assert the claim of privilege. Mmmuffins’
motion was allowed, as once Empress provided answers through its solicitor respecting the
settlement negotiations, it waived any privilege it could claim over the discussions and the
documents. |
| Heslin v. Verbeeten |
(Ian Roher) |
| 2001 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2001] O.J. No. 1602 |
|
|
This was an appeal by the purchasers from the decision striking their summons to Heslin, one of the
vendors. The Court allowed the appeal and found that in ordering the summons to be struck, the wrong
principles had been applied by the Master. In the circumstances, the summons was not an abuse of
process and should not have been struck. |
| Rinaldo v. Rosenfeld |
(Michael Gayed) |
| 2001 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
2001 CarswellOnt 3785 |
Click here for details |
|
The issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in applying the law relating to the burden of explanation in
this fraudulent conveyance action. The Court agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that the threshold necessary
to put the burden of explanation on the defendant had not been reached. The appeal was dismissed
with costs. |
2000
| Terneoy v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc. |
(Robert Colson) |
| 2000 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2000] O.J. No. 3428 |
|
|
Ternoey sustained losses through his speculation in the commodities market while he was committee
of his mother's estate. Terneoy’s motion to amend the name of the plaintiff to that of the estate of his
deceased mother was dismissed, as the criteria essential for amendment were not met. Furthermore,
the granting of the amendment would create prejudice to RBC Dominion Securities not compensable
by costs and there were no special circumstances that would justify such an amendment. |
1999
| Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Herzog |
(Ian Roher) |
| 1999 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[1999] O.J. No. 3272 |
|
|
This was an appeal by Herzog from a Master's decision dismissing his motion to compel the plaintiff
Laurentian Bank of Canada to deliver its affidavit of documents. Herzog argued that he required the
Bank's affidavit of documents to prepare his case, including his response to the summary judgment
motion. Herzog's appeal was allowed, the Master's order was set aside, and the Bank was ordered
to deliver its affidavit of documents. Absent dilatory or abusive conduct, it was only fair that a party
should be entitled to insist on delivery of an affidavit of documents, particularly when it had been
requested at an early stage of the proceedings. |
1998
| Propulsion Capital Inc. v. Goldstein Ontario |
(Martin Teplitsky) |
| 1998 (Ont. C.A.) |
[1998] O.J. No. 3952 |
Click here for details |
|
This was an appeal by Propulsion Capital Inc. from the trial judgment dismissing its action against Goldstein
Ontario for payment under a guarantee. The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that although the trial
judge erred in relying on the doctrine of unconscionability, the factual findings made were not
unreasonable. |
| Sorger v. Bank of Nova Scotia |
(Martin Teplitsky) |
| 1998 (Ont. C.A.) |
[1998] O.J. No. 2071 |
Click here for details |
|
This was an appeal by the plaintiffs Sorger from a judgment dismissing their claim against the defendant bank and its branch manager
for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence and against their solicitor for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and
negligence. The Court of Appeal found that a reasonable and informed observer would have a reasonable
apprehension that the mind of the trial judge was closed to a fair and impartial consideration of the appellants' case.
A new trial was ordered. |
1997
| John W. Harvey Real Estate Co. v. Baker |
(Martin Teplitsky) |
| 1997 (Ont. C.A.) |
[1997] O.J. No. 4883 |
Click here for details |
|
The Court of Appeal found that the law regarding when and to what extent a third-party creditor can be subrogated to a
trustee's right of indemnity from the beneficiaries of a trust is not completely clear. The appeal was allowed and the
matter was directed to trial. |
| Schumacher v. Toronto Dominion Bank |
(Robert Colson) |
| 1997 (Ont. C.A.) |
173 D.L.R. (4th) 577 |
Click here for details |
|
As a result of the Bank’s unilateral change in Schumacher’s employment, he commenced an action for constructive dismissal.
The Court of Appeal found that a reasonable person in employee's situation would have felt that essential terms of his
employment contract had been substantially changed. Schumacher was awarded 13 months pay in lieu of notice and
damages totalling $1.7 million. |
| Schumacher v. Toronto Dominion Bank |
(Robert Colson) |
| 1997 (Ont. Gen.Div) |
147 D.L.R. (4th) 128 |
Click here for details |
|
This was a landmark decision which broke important legal ground for employees whose compensation is variable
and largely dependent on so-called discretionary bonuses. It was the largest judgment for wrongful dismissal that
had ever been awarded in Canada at the time, and the trial judge's decision marked important breakthroughs in several
areas of the law relating to wrongful dismissal. The trial judge's decision was unanimously upheld...
[ more ] |
| Alfonso v. The Second Cup Ltd. |
(Ian Roher) |
| 1997 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[1997] O.J. No. 3993 |
|
|
Alfonso, the plaintiff franchisee, alleged the defendant franchisor acted in bad faith in failing to renew the
head lease. The defendant was the tenant and the plaintiff the subtenant, and the plaintiff had intended to
sell the franchise. The Court found that there was no legal obligation on the defendant to renew the head
lease so that the plaintiff could maximize his sale price. The term of the franchise agreement had expired
and it contained no right in the plaintiff to renew. |
| Energy Marketing Inc. v. Novagas Clearinghouse Core Ltd. |
(James Wortzman) |
| 1997 (Ont. C.J.) (General Division) |
[1997] O.J. No. 2679 |
|
|
This was a motion by Novagas Clearinghouse Core Ltd. for an order striking out various paragraphs of the
amended Statement of Claim on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or violated the
rules of pleading and were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. The plaintiff, Energy Marketing Inc., entered
into a marketing agreement with the defendant whereby the plaintiff solicited potential end user customers
for the defendant. The defendant obtained natural gas in western Canada and supplied it to these end
user customers through local utilities. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant terminated the agreement in
January, 1991, with neither notice nor cause. The defendant's motion to strike parts of the Statement of
Claim was dismissed. There was no basis on which to find that the pleadings were frivolous, vexatious,
or an abuse of process. |
1996
| Cheng v. Cheng |
(Martin Teplitsky)
(Darlene Madott) |
| 1996 (Ont. C.A.) |
[1996] O.J. No. 910 |
Click here for details |
|
The appellant mother brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to proceed against her father-in-law and
mother-in-law to claim support for herself and her children on a variety of grounds. The claim for child support was
said to be based solely upon the provisions of the Family Law Act, and the assertion that the grandparents had
"demonstrated a settled intention" to treat the children as children of their family. The Court granted the appeal, and
the mother was given ten days to amend her statement of claim. |
| Mele v. Royal Bank of Canada |
(Ian Roher) |
| 1996 (Ont. C.J.) (General Division) |
[1996] O.J. No. 230 |
|
|
The Bank's motion for summary judgment on the non-transaction loans was dismissed. There was an issue for trial as to
whether or not a bribe had been paid to the Bank employee, which would cause the transaction loan to be declared illegal,
void and unenforceable. This issue could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion. |
| Nicholas v. Nicholas |
(Martin Teplitsky)
(Darlene Madott) |
| 1996 (Ont. C.A.) |
[1996] O.J. No. 3543 |
Click here for details |
|
This was an appeal by the wife from a decision that Trinidad and Tobago was the appropriate jurisdiction for
resolving divorce proceedings between the parties. The parties were married in Trinidad and Tobago in 1969.
They moved to Ontario in 1980 for the sole purpose of having their children educated in Canada. The parties
maintained a home in Ontario but spent significant periods of time each year in Trinidad. The husband still ran
extensive business activities from Trinidad and was not a Canadian resident. The appeal was dismissed as the
relative strength of all the relevant factors favoured Trinidad as the appropriate jurisdiction. |
| Re Albert Bloom Limited et al. and Gray, Chief Building Official of the Township of Bentinck et al. |
(James Wortzman) |
| 1996 (Ont. C.A.) |
31 O.R, (3d) 317 |
|
|
This was an appeal by land owners from a judgment regarding the authorized use of certain lands. They
claimed that the Bylaw 213-90 authorized land uses which did not conform to the Township's Official Plan.
The Court found that use of the property was settled by the bylaw and the time for challenging that bylaw
was past. The appeal was dismissed. |
1995
| Selmax Realty Inc. v. Peter Marchese Homes Ltd. |
(Garth Low) |
| 1995 (Ont. C.J.) |
[1995] O.J. No. 1035 |
|
|
An employee of Selmax Realty Inc. held an open house that resulted in three offers being made on the home.
The defendant subsequently refused to pay the plaintiff's commission on the grounds that the
employee failed to disclose the fact that the purchasers, a married couple, were both licensed real
estate agents. They claimed the employee failed in her duty to the defendant by not negotiating a
higher offer from one of the purchasers. The action was allowed and payment of commission ordered,
as the Court found that there was no impropriety in the way the employee performed her function as the
salesperson. |
1994
| Dominion Sheet Metal & Roofing Works v. Di Iorio |
(Stephen Brunswick) |
| 1994 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[1994] O.J. No. 1054 |
|
|
This was a request for the imposition of terms of the adjournment of a motion. The terms sought were
that the plaintiff be at liberty to issue and file writs of seizure and sale with respect to assets owned by the
judgment debtor, that the letter of credit be reduced to the extent of the judgment and accrued interest and
paid into court, and that the preparation of the transcript be expedited. The request was denied, as the
Court was not prepared to give the plaintiff permission to issue and file writs of seizure and sale. |
1992
| Jones v. Kansa General Insurance Co. |
(Ian Roher) |
| 1992 (Ont. C.A.) |
96 D.L.R. (4th) 286 |
|
|
The plaintiff Jones, a resident of New York, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York City.
He sued the manufacturer of his motorcycle helmet, Griffin, in New York and obtained judgment there
in the amount of US$2,027,181.10 General Insurance Co. provided comprehensive general liability
insurance, including product liability, to Griffin under a policy which was written in Ontario. The plaintiff
brought an action against the defendant in Ontario based on the New York judgment, which was
unsatisfied. On appeal, the Court found section 132 of the Insurance Act, which provides that
one may sue an insurer upon an unsatisfied judgment against an insured, should not be limited to
Ontario judgments, but applies equally to foreign judgments. |
1990
| Rocket v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons |
(Martin Teplitsky) |
| 1990 (S.C.C.) |
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 232 |
Click here for details |
|
Two dentists, who had a chain of storefront offices, advertised in magazines and newspapers.
They were charged with professional misconduct pursuant to s. 37(39) of the regulations of the Health Disciplines Act.
S. 37(39) prohibited advertising except in limited circumstances. The dentists obtained a declaration that s. 37(39) violated
s. 2(b) of the Charter and s. 37(39) was struck out in its entirety. The Royal College of Dental Surgeons appealed, but the
Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that 2(b) applied to commercial speech including advertising. |
| Vulcan Packaging Inc. v. Capital Ventures |
(Robert Colson) |
| 1990 (Ont. C.A.) |
71 O.R. (2d) 554 |
|
|
Vulcan Packaging Inc. agreed to purchase industrial land from Capital Ventures conditional upon the
clean up of soil contaminants and a report from environmental engineers confirming that specific
remedial work had been carried out. Vulcan Packaging Inc. refused to close the purchase on the
grounds that these conditions were not fulfilled and brought an action for specific performance with
an abatement in the purchase price. The trial judge stated that purchaser was not entitled to
specific performance because the purchaser did not quantify the abatement. The Court of Appeal
found there was no requirement at law that a purchaser seeking specific performance with an
abatement specify the amount of the abatement or pay the proposed abatement into court or to a
third party to hold in escrow. |
|
