Recent Court Decisions
Toronto Commercial, Construction & Real Estate Litigation
The decisions below reflect reported matters in which our lawyers have appeared before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Commercial List, the Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal.
Commercial Litigation
Contract disputes, shareholder remedies, cross-border enforcement.
Wei v. Ye-Hang Canada (EH-C) Technology & Services Inc., 2026 ONCA 180Case Details
Court: Ontario Court of Appeal
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Appeal in a loan repayment dispute involving over $300,000. The Court upheld summary judgment dismissal but set aside liability on corporate defendants via reverse corporate veil piercing, remitting to Superior Court.
Guangdong Maxome Industrial Ltd. v. Sante Manufacturing Inc. (Security for Costs), 2025 ONSCCase Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Trimble
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Motion for $150,000 security for costs dismissed. Court found unpaid goods valued ~USD $126,000 constituted adequate security.
2477791 Ontario Inc. v. Top Art Roofing Ltd., 2025 ONSC 1482Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Divisional Court
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Appeal of Small Claims Court roofing contract trial dismissed. Appellant failed to order transcripts for 5 months and never perfected the appeal. Costs of $6,000 awarded to our client.
China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v Novalex Inc. (Court of Appeal), M55315Case Details
Court: Ontario Court of Appeal
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Appeal of $1,571,971.06 CIETAC arbitral award enforcement. Court ordered $35,000 security for costs and $10,000 outstanding costs against the appellant under Rule 61.06(1)(c).
China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v Novalex Inc., 2024 ONSC 608Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Chang
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Recognition and enforcement of CIETAC arbitral award for automobile brake pad supply contracts. Article 36 challenges defeated; full $1,571,971.06 award upheld with $50,000 costs on consent.
Luo v. Fulton Development Inc., 2023 ONSC 6262Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice M.T. Doi
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Defendants moved under Rules 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11 to strike the plaintiffs' derivative action and oppression remedy in a real estate investment dispute (a $500,000 deposit loan from 947 to Fulton, of which $327,500 was recovered through a settled action but never returned to 947 and instead distributed to select limited partners excluding Mr. Luo and Pepture). Doi J. dismissed the motion entirely: derivative + oppression hybrid framework upheld under Rea v. Wildeboer; motion characterized as an impermissible collateral attack on McSweeney J.'s prior leave order under De Bousquet v. Jarrett.
Cheng v. Qu Fei Cheng, 2022 ONSC 6796Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Koehnen
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Father's appeal from the discharge of two CPLs (vacated below for material non-disclosure on the original ex parte motion) was dismissed. But on a parallel Mareva injunction motion, Koehnen J. froze the daughter's Lindvest sale proceeds equal to the value of the $835,000 condominium that had been transferred away in breach of a Separation Agreement. Plaintiff relieved from undertaking in damages under Rule 40.03 because his lack of assets was caused by the very breach the injunction addressed. Two-track outcome: lost the appeal, won the Mareva.
Luo v. Grigoras, 2022 ONSC 3636Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Associate Justice Graham
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Plaintiff sued the Ouyang defendants personally for $188,157.53 owing on a $200,000 loan made to a different entity (Atlas Healthcare (Richmond Hill) Ltd.) and guaranteed by a different defendant (Mr. Grigoras) — solely on the basis that the loan proceeds had been transferred to the Ouyangs. We moved for security for costs. Graham AJ ordered $25,000 in security under Rule 56.01(1)(e), finding the action against the Ouyangs appeared 'frivolous and vexatious' on the strength of the plaintiff's own pleading and her own July 28, 2018 letter, and that the plaintiff had no demonstrated equity in her Ontario property. Rule 56.01(1)(a) residence ground rejected.
Atlas (Brampton) Limited Partnership v. Canada Grace Park Ltd., 2021 ONCA 221Case Details
Court: Ontario Court of Appeal
Judge: Lauwers, Miller & Nordheimer JJ.A.
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Court of Appeal dismissed the debtor's appeal and upheld foreclosure on $1.8M of pledged Atlas Springbank shares securing a London, Ontario commercial real estate development loan. The panel rejected the s. 17.1(2) PPSA bypass theory adopted below but found that the cumulative five-letter notice sequence between December 2018 and March 2019 satisfied PPSA Part V under the Casse v. Credifinance functional approach. Equitable relief from forfeiture refused.
Atlas (Brampton) Limited Partnership v. Canada Grace Park Ltd., 2020 ONSC 1861
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Application for declaration of invalid share transfer under a $1.8 million security agreement. Court dismissed application and declined equitable relief from forfeiture.
Canada Grace Park Ltd. v. Grigoras, 2021 ONSC 3934Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice M.D. Sharma
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Sibling enforcement action to the Atlas/Canada Grace Park dispute — two separate $500,000 loans (one at 12%, one at 15%) to Atlas Healthcare (Brampton) Ltd. with personal guarantee by Mr. Grigoras. Summary judgment granted under Hryniak without mini-trial; counterclaim dismissed. The court applied a $300,000 prepayment credit (the only live substantive issue, on which the lender lost), leaving $350,000 principal per loan plus pre/post-judgment interest at 12% and 15%.
Logan Instruments Canada Corp. v. WangCase Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Associate Justice McAfee
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Defending a former employee against a $3.25M misappropriation claim. Rule 56.01(1)(d) security-for-costs motion anchored on a Rule 39.03 examination of the plaintiff's director — court ordered the corporate plaintiff to post $60,000 in tranches before each litigation milestone.
Jonathan's - Aluminum & Steel Supply Inc. v. Retail, 2015 ONSC 6485Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice K.P. Wright
Counsel: Paul Starkman
9-day trial: small business seller refused payment for $110,644.14 inventory after closing of sale. Court accepted Mr. Liu's count and pricing in entirety, held contract scope to chattels and inventory only (not customer list/training/goodwill), and defeated buyer's setoff defence by finding the post-contract non-competition agreement invalid for economic duress under NAV Canada.
BIE Health Products v. AG Canada et al., 2015 ONSC 3418 (Appeal)Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice F.L. Myers
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Appeal of Master's discovery order against the federal government. Justice Myers preserved Master's findings on AG conduct and privilege burden, modified the disclosure remedy by reviewing the ~50 disputed documents himself (~30 minutes). BIE succeeded on 2 of 3 issues on appeal; AG ordered to pay $13,000 in costs partial-indemnity.
BIE Health Products v. AG Canada et al., 2015 ONSC 544 (Motion)Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Master Joan Haberman
Counsel: Paul Starkman
20 months of dilatory disclosure tactics by Health Canada in a libel action. Master Haberman ordered AG to produce documents over which privilege had been asserted but not substantiated, refused AG's last-minute adjournment request, and awarded $15,000 partial-indemnity costs to BIE.
CNL Stamping & Tooling Inc. v. Lorwood Holdings Inc., 2015 ONSC 492Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Master R.A. Muir
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Motion to strike amended reply under Rules 25 and 26. Court found defendant waived right to challenge pleading by taking further steps in the litigation, including scheduling discoveries on the very paragraphs it sought to strike. Motion dismissed.
Re Bankruptcy of Zeev Saban, 2012 ONSC 6700Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Commercial List
Judge: Justice Newbould
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Appeal by creditor from Registrar's order granting conditional discharge from bankruptcy. Creditor alleged perjury and fraud by the bankrupt. Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the Registrar in the discharge hearing process.
Kal-Trading Inc. v. Plastics Processing Inc., [2006] O.J. No. 2127Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice T.P. O'Connor
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Summary judgment for the full USD $69,000.35 in dishonoured-cheque debt for goods sold and delivered. Defendant resold the goods at a profit, then stopped payment alleging defective LDPE film. Court applied Iraco — equitable set-off does not apply to bills of exchange — excluded the buyer's expert report under Rule 53.03(1), and refused the stay. Counterclaim was preserved as a separate action.
7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc. v. Helter Investments Ltd., [2005] O.J. No. 2847Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice J.R. Sproat
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Summary judgment granted for $987,320 owing under a vendor take-back second mortgage on a $5.12 million commercial property sale. Mortgagor's counterclaim for $2.5 million for fraudulent misrepresentation did not constitute a genuine issue for trial. Injunction to stay judgment pending counterclaim trial denied.
Sommerville Design & Mfg. Inc. v. J. Philip Humfrey International Inc., [1999] O.J. No. 1492Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Lack
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Defended Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. against an inducement-to-breach counterclaim arising from a scroll saw manufacturing dispute between Sommerville and J. Philip Humfrey International. Anchored the defence on the knowledge element of the tort: Black & Decker had no prior relationship with International and no awareness of the underlying contract. Counterclaim against Black & Decker dismissed with costs.
McNabb v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2000] O.J. No. 3248Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Chapnik
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Multi-million dollar action for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches after arson charges against plaintiffs were dismissed for no prima facie case. Defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21. Court found plaintiffs pleaded sufficient particulars to support malicious prosecution cause of action and dismissed motion to strike.
R. v. 1353837 Ontario Inc., [2005] O.J. No. 166
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice T. Ducharme
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Application for certiorari and stay of proceedings under Charter s. 11(b) for unreasonable delay in Building Code Act and Occupational Health and Safety Act charges. Court dismissed application, finding Provincial Offences Act barred certiorari where appeal route existed and no exceptional circumstances were established.
Construction Litigation
Contractor payment disputes, lien preservation, renovation contracts.
Xdream Home Renos Inc. v. Ng et al., 2026 ONSC 1124Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Schabas
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Summary judgment for a renovation contractor on $208,300 in invoices — under Simplified Procedure, where summary judgment is typically discouraged. Anchored on the WeChat record showing the defendants never disputed the invoices contemporaneously. Defendants filed no sworn evidence; alleged oral agreement died from procedural insufficiency.
Sheikh et al. v. 1579959 Ontario Inc. (Divisional Court Appeal), 2026 ONSC 1322Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Divisional Court
Judge: Justices Shore, O'Brien & Smith
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Homeowners appealed every finding from a $105,804.92 construction trial loss, plus leave to appeal a $82,368.35 cost order. Divisional Court dismissed all seven grounds and refused leave on costs.
1579959 Ontario Inc. v. Sheikh et al. (Trial Decision), 2025 ONSC 185Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Trimble
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
4-day trial in $232,000 residential renovation dispute (sunroom conversion to two-story space). Defence expert witness excluded through voir dire. Court found homeowners breached contract by stopping payment, rejected abandonment defence. Judgment: $105,804.92 plus prejudgment interest.
Infinite Construction Development Ltd. v. Chen (Lien Discharge), 2022 ONSC 3929Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Associate Justice Todd Robinson
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Toronto property owner faced two construction liens registered for $1,185,000 each on title (actual claim ~$155,894). On a s. 47 Construction Act motion, the court found no triable issue on the alleged equitable assignment from the original general contractor to the lien claimant; held the claimant was not a 'contractor' under s. 1(1) Construction Act; and held lien rights had expired under s. 31(3)(b) before registration. Lien declared expired and registrations vacated; breach-of-contract and breach-of-trust claims dismissed. Action continues as regular Rules action on residual unjust enrichment / quantum meruit claims.
Infinite Construction Development Ltd. v. Chen (Divisional Court Appeal), 2023 ONSC 2627Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Divisional Court
Judge: D.L. Corbett J.
Counsel: Paul Starkman & Calvin Zhang
Divisional Court appeal from the s. 47 lien discharge in 2022 ONSC 3929. Corbett J. dismissed the appeal: the Associate Justice below had applied the correct test, made no palpable and overriding error, and was right that Infinite was not a 'contractor' under the Construction Act. Maplequest and R&V Construction were affirmed at the appellate level as governing authority for s. 47 motions. The Statute of Frauds and Conveyancing and Law of Property Act s. 53(1) alternative arguments were noted as 'tenable' but not decided.
Gomori v. Greenvilla Development Group Inc., [2007] O.J. No. 3744Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice D.S. Ferguson
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Defended Ontario homebuilder against a follow-on Superior Court action covering the same 107 alleged defects the homeowner had pursued through Tarion and the LAT (8-day hearing) and lost. Motion to strike amended statement of claim allowed on issue estoppel grounds under Danyluk v. Ainsworth — privies analysis extended estoppel to subcontractors, engineers, and the municipality.
Jakubcsik v. Campabasso, [2005] O.J. No. 1473
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice J.D. Ground
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Construction project payment dispute for the Victory Estates Whitby Project involving $250,000+ in disputed payments. Court ordered all engineer-certified payments to suppliers, contractors, and trades to be paid forthwith. Parties directed to resolve disputed trade accounts within specified timelines.
Landlord & Tenant Litigation
Lease disputes, rent recovery, eviction proceedings.
Yang v. Lei, 2026 ONSCCase Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Chozik
Counsel: Calvin Zhang & Helen Lu
Rule 56.01 security-for-costs motion collapsed a Certificate of Pending Litigation registered against our client's property. Applicant abandoned the CPL on receipt; $9,000 costs thrown away awarded forthwith. Court rejected the argument that the cost award should be discounted because the same motion might be re-litigated in a future action.
Ardabili v. Zak et al., 2025 ONSC 176Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice de Sa
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Summary judgment granted for landlord in rent arrears dispute exceeding LTB's $35,000 jurisdiction. Court awarded $50,441 including $40,250 unpaid rent, $5,691 utilities, and $4,500 property damages, plus $3,500 costs. Tenants had defied multiple LTB orders.
Cao v. Iskander, CV-23-188 (May 2025)Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice M.E. Vallee
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Tenants stopped paying rent for two years and claimed $38,128.83 in unauthorized repairs as setoff. Summary judgment under Hryniak: $118,995 in arrears, tenancy terminated, Sheriff directed to give vacant possession, all within 7 days of the ruling. Repair setoff collapsed from $38K to $1,536 (only proven payments). $13,315 costs forthwith.
Ji Zhou et al. v. Azadeh Hashem Nia et al., 2023 ONSC 5466Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice Carole J. Brown
Counsel: Calvin Zhang
Tenants stopped paying rent in April 2022 and stayed for 16 months. After the LTB process stalled when the tenants brought a set-aside motion that automatically stayed the eviction order, we withdrew the LTB application and pivoted to Superior Court under RTA s. 207(2). Brown J. granted summary judgment for $89,773 in arrears, ongoing occupation rent at $5,689/month or $189.63/diem, lease termination, and a writ of possession. Counterclaim dismissed. All three jurisdictional defences (s. 207(3) waiver, res judicata, abuse of process) rejected. $13,918 in costs to the landlord.
1546273 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Margerita's Pizza) v. Rosestone Developments Ltd., [2006] O.T.C. 104Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice G.B. Morawetz
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Commercial lease forfeiture dispute. Landlord sealed tenant's restaurant premises citing multiple lease breaches. Court granted tenant relief from forfeiture on an interim basis, finding tenant operated a successful business and had only failed to pay rent once in five years. Tenant required to remedy breaches as conditions of relief.
Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd. v. Phillips, [2005] O.J. No. 5636Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice J.B. McMahon
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Application for relief from forfeiture of a commercial lease. Landlord terminated lease and took possession for non-payment of one month's rent. Court granted interim relief from forfeiture, noting the tenant had occupied the premises for five years with only one missed payment and operated a successful business.
Central Park Lodges v. Iqbal, [2002] O.J. No. 1721Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Divisional Court
Judge: Justice Dunnet
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Landlord's motion to quash a tenant appeal that had stayed enforcement of a rent-arrears order. The Divisional Court adjourned the motion 12 days but conditioned the adjournment on the tenant paying $34,050.78 into court — failing which the Registrar was authorized to quash the appeal and lift the stay ex parte on affidavit of non-compliance, with no further motion required.
Real Estate Litigation
Failed closings, title issues, specific performance claims.
1390957 Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione, [2002] O.J. No. 22Case Details
Court: Ontario Court of Appeal
Judge: Catzman, Carthy and Rosenberg JJ.A.
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Appeal concerning interpretation of the Planning Act and validity of a land conveyance. Purchaser argued vendor's predecessor's transfer violated the Act, entitling purchaser to repudiate the APS and recover the deposit. Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reversing the lower court's dismissal.
Sandringham Place Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2001] O.J. No. 2733Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Divisional Court
Judge: Maloney, B. Wright and Gillese JJ.
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Judicial review of OHRC decision to remit human rights complaints to a Board of Inquiry. Real property developer challenged complaints alleging discrimination based on a restrictive covenant prohibiting group homes. Court found OHRC's decision was patently unreasonable — it failed to consider statutory factors including delay and prejudice. Decision quashed and remitted to a different Commission member.
Wiltshire v. McGill, [2005] O.J. No. 2164Case Details
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judge: Justice R.W.M. Pitt
Counsel: Paul Starkman
Land Titles right-of-way application brought against the builder personally over a North York infill lot at 286 Bedford Park Avenue. Affidavit evidence established the lot was actually owned and developed by 584104 Ontario Limited, of which the builder was only an officer; the corporation was not a party. Application dismissed against the builder; remaining right-of-way issues sent to trial as between the applicant and the adjoining-lot owners under Rule 38.10(b).