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.
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.
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.
Tara Lemke and Alex Herle represented the Defendant in a 6 week personal injury jury trial
where the Defendant was successful in having the Plaintiffsʼ expert on liability excluded.
While damages were ultimately awarded to the seriously injured Plaintiff, there were reduced
significantly below those being sought and were well below the Plaintiffsʼ pre-trial Rule 49
offer to settle. The Defendants were successful in having the presumptive PJI rate lowered
from 5% to 1.3% on non-pecuniary damages and past pecuniary damages at 0.8%, but this
decision was later overturned at the C.A.
The respondent successfully defended this matter resulting in a finding that the applicant was
not CAT and the treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary.
This was a preliminary issue hearing at the LAT wherein the insurer was successful in striking
her LAT application as the applicant had entered into a valid settlement agreement.
This was an urgent motion brought to the Divisional Court in an attempt to stay an impending
LAT hearing to allow for a judicial review to take place. The LAT had denied the respondent’s
adjournment request. Despite the importance of procedural fairness and the maintenance of
the appearance of fairness, the stay was not granted as counsel needs to be available for
existing dates before agreeing to act on a matter.
Acting for the Defendant small business owner, Ms. Barber brought a Right to Sue Application which barred the Plaintiff from pursuing a personal injury lawsuit.
Ms. Barber successfully barred a multi-million-dollar personal injury lawsuit with a Right to Sue Application. The decision was upheld on both the reconsideration and Judicial Review.
