James M. Wortzman, Toronto Lawyer/Litigator @ Teplitsky, Colson LLP - Barristers

J.M. Wortzman -

cases -

- notable cases

Entral Group International Inc. v. 1438762 Ontario Inc.
2005 Ontario Master	[2005] O.J. No. 2140	Click here for details
This was an application by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action. The plaintiff, TC Worldwide, held an exclusive licence in Canada and the United States, granted by seven Hong Kong-based record companies, regarding the distribution of the karaoke version of hundreds of their music videos. The other plaintiff, Entral Group, claimed that it held the exclusive sub-licence for Canada. The plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement and for other economic torts. The defendants submitted that the action did not comply with the requirements of the Copyright Act because the action was commenced by the licensees and not by the record company owners. The action was stayed until the record companies were added as parties.

I. Young & Co. v. Magee
2005 (Ont. S.C.J.)	[2005] O.J. No. 2557	Click here for details
I. Young & Company commenced an action against the defendant for $75,831 owed under a contract for landscaping services. The original agreement and estimate stated that the company was not sure what the work would entail, and provided a range of possible costs. The work billed for in the invoice was different from what the original estimate stated. The company continued to work because the defendant promised that payments would be made. Work, however, eventually stopped because the company's out-of-pocket expenses were getting too high. The company was awarded $76,831, which included $1,000 for repairs done by the company to the pool at the request of Magee, for which the company was promised an additional $1,000 payment.

364511 Ontario Ltd. v. Darena Holdings Ltd.
2002 (Ont. S.C.J.)	[2002] C.C.S. No. 10287	Click here for details
This was an application by 364511 Ontario for leave to appeal a decision that struck out its amended statement of claim. At trial, 364511 Ontario sued for the return of a deposit paid under an offer to lease commercial premises, and the three defendants were found liable at trial. However, the judgment was set aside against two of the defendants. Leave to appeal was granted, as the Court found that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

Energy Marketing Inc. v. Novagas Clearinghouse Core Ltd.
1997 (Ont. C.J.) (General Division)	[1997] O.J. No. 2679
This was a motion by Novagas Clearinghouse Core Ltd. for an order striking out various paragraphs of the amended Statement of Claim on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or violated the rules of pleading and were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. The plaintiff, Energy Marketing Inc., entered into a marketing agreement with the defendant whereby the plaintiff solicited potential end user customers for the defendant. The defendant obtained natural gas in western Canada and supplied it to these end user customers through local utilities. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant terminated the agreement in January, 1991, with neither notice nor cause. The defendant's motion to strike parts of the Statement of Claim was dismissed. There was no basis on which to find that the pleadings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Re Albert Bloom Limited et al. and Gray, Chief Building Official of the Township of Bentinck et al.
1996 (Ont. C.A.)	31 O.R, (3d) 317
This was an appeal by land owners from a judgment regarding the authorized use of certain lands. They claimed that the Bylaw 213-90 authorized land uses which did not conform to the Township's Official Plan. The Court found that use of the property was settled by the bylaw and the time for challenging that bylaw was past. The appeal was dismissed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suite 200, 70 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1X3
Tel.: 416.865.5315 • Fax: 416.365.0695 • E-mail