Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog: Five Liners
Apr
30
2026
Essential Term for Contract
Wright v. Wright 2026 Ont CA
Adult child and her spouse sought enforcement of an agreement granting them an option to purchase property from child’s mother. The court determined that a missing term regarding sale proceeds was not essential and could be severed. It further found no undue influence, fiduciary breach, or unconscionability in light of independent legal advice and the parties’ intentions. Accordingly, the agreement was enforceable and the plaintiff succeeded.
Continue Reading >Apr
15
2026
Frivolous Action or Appeal
2257573 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 124
Mortgagor moved to re‑open a previously dismissed appeal after mortgagee had obtained summary judgment enforcing mortgage obligations that had already been upheld by the appellate court. The court dealt with the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorises early dismissal of proceedings that are plainly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It found that the motion raised no exceptional circumstances capable of justifying the extraordinary remedy of re‑opening an appeal and instead sought to relitigate issues that were or could have been raised previously. Exercising its gatekeeping function under Rule 2.1, the court summarily dismissed the motion as an abuse of process with no chance of success.
Continue Reading >Apr
15
2026
Judicial Review of Adjudicator’s Decision
Sayers v. Gay Co. 2026 ONSC918 (Div Ct)
Owner sought judicial review of an adjudicator’s prompt payment determination requiring interim payment to contractor, asserting jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, fraud, improper treatment of delay and set‑off claims, and bias. The court rejected each ground, holding that the adjudicator reasonably applied the Construction Act and the parties’ written contract, which did not provide contractual entitlement to withhold payment for delay. The court emphasized that prompt payment adjudication is intended to ensure the immediate flow of funds despite unresolved disputes, and that complexity or alleged prejudice does not defeat the statutory scheme. As no reviewable error was established under the limited grounds in the Act, the court dismissed the application.
Continue Reading >Apr
13
2026
Evidence and Self-Represented Litigant
Equifax Canada Co. v. Oh, 2026 ONCA 76
The plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the defendant, who sought to appeal but failed to meet several procedural deadlines while acting without counsel. The defendant brought a motion seeking transcripts of the summary judgment proceedings and additional time to perfect the appeal. The court concluded that transcripts were necessary because the motion judge permitted the defendant to rely on unsworn materials and oral submissions that were treated as evidence, making it impossible to assess the record without transcripts. To ensure a fair and intelligible appeal, the court granted the requested orders and extended the perfection deadline, leaving issues of admissibility and costs to be determined by the appeal panel. The court noted: “When a self-represented litigant who is making submissions begins to make statements that are more like evidence, the litigant should be sworn in and put in the witness box after being cautioned that the litigant will be subject to immediate cross-examination by opposing counsel or opposing litigant if self-represented on any factual statements made.”
Continue Reading >Apr
13
2026
Setting Aside Registrar’s Dismissal – Delay & Prejudice
Arumugasamy v. Subaschandiran, 2026 ONCA 102
Lender brought an action against borrower seeking recovery of unpaid loans, which the borrower opposed while advancing a much larger counterclaim. Although the matter progressed through pleadings and discoveries and reached the trial list, the action was struck and later administratively dismissed because lender’s lawyer failed to attend court and “lost sight” of the file. The appeal court allowed the action to be restored, holding that the delay was attributable to counsel’s inadvertence rather than lender’s own conduct, particularly where lender repeatedly attempted to obtain updates from counsel. The court further concluded that the defendant suffered no real prejudice, especially given borrower’s failure to prosecute the counterclaim or respond to lender’s counsel.
Continue Reading >Mar
30
2026
Deemed Provisions in Order / Conversion
2668602 Ontario Inc. v. GWL Realty Advisors Inc. 2026 Ont C.A.
Purchaser bought warehouse fixtures, including extensive racking, during insolvency proceedings but failed to remove them by the deadline after the lease disclaimer. The insolvency order deemed that if purchaser did not do so, purchaser would be deemed to have abandoned them. Purchaser did nothing to remove the racking and the landlord ultimately sold it for $45,000. 18 months later, purchaser sued the landlord for conversion. The Court of Appeal held that the deemed abandonment, in the context of the case, could not be rebutted and, regardless, the facts did not actual rebut the abandonment. Although not applicable, the Court noted that conversion damages would have been the fair market value of the racking at the date of the conversion.
Continue Reading >Mar
27
2026
Interest Act s. 8
Rabinowitz v. 2528061 Ontario Inc. 2026 Ont C.A.
Purchaser sought specific performance of a failed commercial real estate transaction and repayment of a six‑month mortgage that vendor had granted to secure purchaser’s deposit. Interest was 0% to the closing date and 12% on closing and the mortgage proceeds were to be applied to the purchase price. The trial judge found vendor repudiated the agreement but, holding that the property was not unique and that damages would adequately compensate purchaser, dismissed purchaser’s specific‑performance claim. The Court of Appeal agreed and refused purchaser’s attempt to amend its pleadings to claim for damages. The judge ordered vendor to repay the mortgage but refused to order the 12% contractual interest as violating s. 8 of the Interest Act. The Court of Appeal restored the 12% contractual interest, holding that the interest rate increase was not a consequence of the breach of the agreement and that s. 8 did not apply.
Continue Reading >Mar
27
2026
Project Manager’s Civil Fraud
1995636 Ontario Inc. v. 5010729 Ontario Inc. 2026 Ont SCJ (Div Ct)
Project manager provided development‑management services for a housing project and filed a $450,000 construction lien after the owner terminated the contract. The owner found that project manager was building a duplex rather than 13 units as represented. The trial judge rejected project manager’s evidence as not credible, found intentional deception, held that project manager was entitled to no more money than the owner had already paid, discharged the lien, and granted damages on the counterclaim. The Divisional Court upheld the result.
Continue Reading >Mar
25
2026
Contingency Agreement
Leduc v. O’Brien Estate 2026 Ont CA
Client settled a medical‑negligence action for a substantial sum. Lawyers sought approval of fees under a contingency fee agreement. The motion judge approved the settlement, but reduced the fee after finding the agreement unfair when made. The lawyers’ appealed, arguing the agreement was understood and voluntarily entered into. The Court of Appeal held that the agreement was unfair when made because the clients were vulnerable and the agreement did not comply with the contingency rules under the Solicitor’s Act.
Continue Reading >Mar
25
2026
Secondary Evidence
Bank of Montreal v. Ieradi 2025 Ont SCJ
Bank sought repayment of a line of credit, asserting that the defendant personally entered into and used the facility. The bank had lost the signed agreement. The dispute’s outcome depended on secondary evidence, including cheques, statements, and usage patterns. The court found the secondary evidence overwhelmingly indicated a personal agreement.
Continue Reading >