Decisions

Voutour v. MVG Investments Inc., 2022 ONSC 1610

In this action under the Construction Act, a builder placed a lien for work done on a residential unit he moved into, managed by an old friend, Mike, as part of his family’s property holdings on the Danforth in Toronto.  The builder succeeded on this motion to dismiss, with costs awarded to him on a substantial indemnity basis. 

After Mike passed away, the building was put up for sale and a lien needed to be placed urgently to protect Mr. Voutour’s interests.  Associate Justice Wiebe’s reasons illustrate how the Construction Act in Ontario is a complete code concerning construction lien remedies, superseding the Statute of Frauds to the extent it permits an interest in land without a contract in writing.  As the Court found, this has been instinctively understood by the public and the Courts, at least until now.

The Divisional Court of Ontario unanimously dismissed an application for leave to appeal the decision of Associate Justice Wiebe, also awarding costs to Mr. Voutour on a substantial indemnity basis.  Voutour v. MVG Investments Inc., 2022 ONSC 3196.

Re: Tabi International Corporation

In this proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Beaches Legal represented the former directors of Tabi International Corporation, the operator of Cotton Ginny branded stores in shopping malls across Canada, until the sale of this brand in 2011.

Orders to pay were issued by the government against the former directors totalling over $64,000.  Beaches Legal presented evidence of the directors, from the United States via Skype, establishing the dates of their resignation and amounts accrued to employees, reducing the amounts owing to a total of approximately $18,000.

This case concerned the interpretation and application of the Employment Standards Act, applicable to most employees in Ontario, and its application to claimants across Canada.

Qiu v. Oversea Chinese Fund

This Application to the Commercial List of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with the distribution of funds seized by the Ontario Securities Commission in Canada’s largest Ponzi type scheme, which unravelled in the 2008 financial crisis.

Justice Pepall endorsed that the funds seized were in fact trust funds.  The Applicants’ entitlement to a pro-rata distribution of the funds seized with other investors was established.

S.M. v. Unica Insurance Inc.

Beaches Legal assisted colleagues to present the complex case of S.M. to the License Appeal Tribunal.  S.M. had been ice-fishing with some friends on Lake Simcoe.  On the way home their vehicle hit a pressure crack on the lake and flipped over, ejecting its passengers.

S.M. sustained a catastrophic impairment, including a brain injury and multiple fractures including to his cervical spine and wrist.  S.M. was awarded $344,864 for home modifications, $6,000 per week for above guideline attendant care benefits and other relief, including a special award of 25% of benefits unreasonably denied by the insurer.

Townson & Alexander Consulting Services Inc. v. 602613 Ontario Inc. et. al. (Summary Judgment Motion)

In this document intensive case, a corporate plaintiff initiated an action against a pharmacy for alleged damages of $500,000 for breach of contract.  The defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff and their lawyer, who had represented the pharmacist while in a conflict of interest with the plaintiff, operating as business consultants.

Summary judgment was awarded to the defendant on a motion, dismissing the $500,000 claim and ordering the return to the pharmacy of almost $100,000 paid to the business consultants, and a return of $30,000 in fees paid to the lawyer, plus costs as requested of almost $60,000, payable 50/50 by the business consultants and their former counsel.

Li v. State Farm

State Farm insurance denied recommended statutory accident benefits for Mr. Li, acting unreasonably.  Beaches Legal acted as agent for colleagues to present Mr. Li’s case to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

Mr. Li was awarded the recommended driving assistive devices, relaxation CDs, custom orthotics and various assessments.  For acting unreasonably, State Farm was liable to pay a special award of over $25,000, plus monthly compounded interest for the overdue payment of statutory accident benefits.

Lin v. State Farm

As in Li v. State Farm, State Farm acted unreasonably in denying recommended statutory accident benefits to Ms. Lin.  The application was wholly successful and Ms. Lin was awarded the recommended assistive devices and assessments, in addition to a special award of almost $18,000 for denying these payments.  Ms. Lin was awarded costs of the arbitration plus monthly compounded interest on the overdue payment of benefits.

PPF Investments Inc. v. Town of Oakville et. al. (Decision on Appeal)

In this successful appeal, the Divisional Court set aside a commercial property tax assessment as being unreasonable, due to not having reference to the values of similarly situated properties.

Over the objection of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the Town of Oakville, a unanimous panel found that MPAC had acted unreasonably in only considering the value of comparable properties when there was no reliable sales data to rely on.  This practice was found to violate section 44(2) of the Assessment Act of Ontario.

PPF Investments Inc. v. Town of Oakville et. al. (Decision on Leave to Appeal)

In a detailed decision granting the commercial property owner leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, Justice Price extended the time for filing a notice of application for leave to appeal, finding that there was reason to doubt the correctness of the decision at issue.

The Assessment Review Board was found not to have had proper regard for the assessed values of properties similarly situated to those of the applicant, raising issues of law of significance beyond the parties to this application.

6503 v. Tarion Warranty Corporation

In this case, Beaches Legal represented a builder of luxury homes in Toronto who faced a Tarion warranty claim alleging deficiencies in the hot water heating system of the home, affecting the in-floor radiant heating and heated outdoor walkways.

The builder led expert evidence that the addition by the home owners of the heated outdoor walkways after the construction of the home took the load of the HVAC system over its maximum capacity, requiring the addition of a boiler.

The applicants’ claims were found to be without merit, there being no major structural defect with the new home, as alleged.