Jeremy R. Rubenstein

Jeremy successfully brought a motion to compel the Plaintiff to post security for costs in this action against our client. The motion judge granted the motion after agreeing that the Plaintiff’s claim of impecuniosity was “completely unreliable” and the claim was “almost certain to fail” on the merits. The action was later dismissed on a motion for the Plaintiff’s failure to post the security that was ordered.

Jeremy successfully represented a physiotherapist against several complaints to the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“the Committee”) undertook a thorough review of the evidence and arguments of the parties, and was persuaded to take no action in relation to any of the complaints. The Applicant appealed the decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Committee’s decision upon appeal.

Jeremy successfully resisted the proposed intervention by Ecojustice in the appeal of our Huang v Fraser Hillary’s Limited trial victory. Amongst other things, the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that intervention as a friend of the Court was not appropriate because the appeal concerned a private dispute, the proposed intervenor’s submissions would not be helpful, and the proposed intervention would cause an injustice to our client.

Jeremy was co-counsel for the Defendant, David Hillary, on this environmental contamination case. Mr. Hillary was a homeowner that lived in a property beside a dry cleaning facility. Before Mr. Hillary purchased the property there were dry cleaning spills into the ground that sunk beneath the property Mr. Hillary later purchased. The Plaintiff sued the dry cleaning company and Mr. Hillary for the remediation costs of the contamination that flowed downgradient from these properties to the Plaintiff’s property. Our firm successfully defended our client at trial on all 4 causes of action (Nuisance, Negligence, Trespass and liability under s99 of the Environmental Protections Act) that were raised in relation to the flow of dry cleaning contamination. The trial judge dismissed the claim in its entirety against our client on this case where damages were assessed at $1.8M.

Jeremy represented Mr. Dudzicki who was a tenant at the Plaintiffs’ residence. A fire broke out at the Plaintiffs’ residence which was paid for by the Plaintiffs’ insurance company. The insurance company brought a subrogated claim against Mr. Dudzicki to try and recover its payout. Jeremy brought a motion to dismiss the claim against Mr. Dudzicki for want of jurisdiction, on the basis that the Landlord Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the issue and the limitation period had expired. Jeremy was successful in the motion and the claim was dismissed against Mr. Dudzicki.

Jeremy represented Mr. Lalonde in this case where the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on Mr. Lalonde’s property. Jeremy successfully brought a motion on behalf of our client to dismiss the action against him. The Court dismissed the claim after finding that the Plaintiff’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no meaningful chance of success at trial.

Eric and Jeremy acted for the Plaintiff who brought an action for breach of contract in relation to the purchase and sale of property. The case involved issues of ostensible authority, whether a contract existed, the Statue of Frauds, the doctrine of part-performance, and the relatively new cause of action “proprietary estoppel”. Campbell Pools leased commercial land from the Defendant for many years until a heavy snowstorm destroyed his  leased premises. Under the lease, the Defendant was required to rebuild the destroyed structures. Campbell Pools negotiated with the Defendant’s agent to forego the Defendant’s obligations under the lease and part of the insurance proceeds received in exchange for the outright purchase of the lands. At trial, Eric and Jeremy successfully argued that the agent had ostensible authority to bind the Defendant, the agreement satisfied the Statute of Frauds despite being a ‘napkin agreement’, part-performance was established, and that, alternatively, the relatively new cause of action of “proprietary estoppel” applied. The Court awarded specific performance of the agreement of purchase and sale and our client was awarded the property. 

Eric Williams and Jeremy Rubenstein successfully represented the Plaintiffs at trial in this matter. The Plaintiffs were the beneficiaries of a parcel of land that was being held in trust for them by one of the Defendants (who was also a beneficiary). The parcel of land was purchased and held for the purposes of being turned into a residential development in the future. However, the trustee Defendant sold the property to his son’s friend under suspicious circumstances and without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs. Eric and Jeremy successfully argued that the Defendant trustee was in violation of his obligations as trustee, that he was a “fraudulent person” under the Land Titles Act, and that the Defendant purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Of note, the Court accepted the Plaintiff’s interpretation of “fictitious person” under the Land Titles Act in finding that the vendor was a fraudulent person, which was the first time this term had been judicially considered in this context. Ultimately, the Court undid the fraudulent transaction, declared the Plaintiffs’ interests in the property, and ordered the rectification of the title of the property.