Aaron Kreaden

The applicant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from breaching negative covenants in their long-term Royalty Agreement governing a collision repair shop network.

The respondent, which operated 65 shops under the applicant's brand, gave notice of its intention to unilaterally leave the relationship and rebrand its shops, openly acknowledging this would constitute a breach of contract.

The respondent argued damages would be an adequate remedy, invoking the concept of efficient breach.

The court rejected this argument, finding the damages were too complex, multi-layered, and potentially incalculable over the remaining 19-year term to make monetary compensation adequate.

The court granted the permanent injunction enforcing the negative covenants and awarded costs of $185,000 to the applicant.

The plaintiffs sought costs following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to vacate a Mareva injunction.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, alleging egregious conduct by the defendants, including a multi-year fraudulent scheme.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as the claims had not been finally adjudicated.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, including the costs of the initial motion made without notice, as those materials were necessary for the de novo hearing.

Costs were fixed at $200,000, payable within 30 days.

The applicants, executors of an estate, sought a declaration on whether paying a Dubai judgment against the deceased's former law firm would violate Canadian law.

The judgment creditor was associated with entities that had historically raised funds for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a listed terrorist entity.

The respondents, former law partners of the deceased, argued that the payment would not benefit a terrorist group and relied on expert evidence regarding anti-money laundering laws in Dubai and the BVI.

The court found that any payment towards the Dubai judgment would be contrary to section 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code, as there was a risk the funds could indirectly benefit a terrorist group.

The Investigative Receiver sought various forms of relief, including a sealing order over asset valuations and an order requiring the respondent and his wife to disclose the use of proceeds from a $2.4 million mortgage on their family home.

The court granted the sealing order, finding it met the requirements of Sherman Estate.

The court also ordered the disclosure of the mortgage proceeds, finding the respondent's claim of ignorance regarding the funds to be not credible and determining that the information fell within the Receiver's investigative mandate.

The applicant and respondent, two brothers, were involved in an arbitration regarding the separation of their trucking businesses.

The arbitrator appointed an inspector to investigate the respondent's conduct and potential unequal benefits.

On this motion, the court affirmed the arbitrator's jurisdiction to appoint an inspector for parties to the arbitration agreement.

The court also appointed an investigative receiver to sell the business and investigate the respondent's transactions, including those involving a non-party, Motion Transport Ltd. The applicant's proposed receiver was appointed due to a potential conflict with the respondent's choice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for $1,326,491.18 in unpaid fees for e-commerce services provided to the defendant.

The defendant argued the motion was premature and raised a counterclaim for equitable set-off, alleging the plaintiff induced a related entity to breach an inspection rights agreement.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant failed to put its best foot forward or provide evidence of inducement.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to vary a Mareva injunction to permit payments for legal fees and living expenses out of frozen funds.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the defendants failed to demonstrate they lacked access to other assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the moving parties failed to discharge their onus because they did not provide evidence explaining why related corporate defendants (Incryptex and ApexDX) could not fund the litigation, nor did they provide sufficient details of their living expenses or account for other funds.

The applicant, a former majority shareholder who now holds a negligible amount of shares, sought leave nunc pro tunc to commence a derivative action on behalf of the respondent pharmaceutical corporation against its directors.

The applicant alleged mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duties, seeking damages for trading losses he suffered when selling his shares.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant could not use a derivative action to recover personal trading losses.

Furthermore, the court held that the action was not in the best interests of the corporation, as it would divert limited financial resources and management time, and lacked support from any current shareholders.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' applications regarding holdback funds from a commercial transaction, the respondent sought costs.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that was better than the result obtained by the applicants.

The applicants objected to the costs claimed, arguing the matter was over-lawyered and the costs were disproportionate.

The court agreed there was some over-lawyering but found the applicants' unproven allegations of dishonesty against the respondent justified an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixed at $73,036 inclusive of disbursements.

Two related vendor companies applied for payment of holdback funds following the sale of land, building, and an industrial gas business to the purchaser.

The agreements required the vendors to obtain a zoning compliance letter satisfactory to the purchaser and permitted indemnity holdbacks for breaches relating to the property.

The purchaser refused to release the funds after concluding the business did not comply with municipal zoning restrictions and incurred relocation costs.

The court held the purchaser acted reasonably and in good faith in relying on professional advice and exercising contractual discretion under the holdback provisions.

Both applications were dismissed and the holdback funds were ordered released to the purchaser.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant for repayment of a USD$1 million loan and over $400,000 in interest.

The funds had been advanced to a corporate entity controlled by the defendant, who failed to account for them.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the principal amount, as the defendant provided no credible explanation for the missing funds.

However, the court found a trial was necessary to determine if the defendant was personally liable for the contractual interest rate.

Following judgment awarding damages for auditor negligence, the court determined the appropriate prejudgment interest rate and start date under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s proposed interpretation of the Ministry interest rate tables and held that the statutory quarterly rate corresponding to the commencement of the action applied.

The court also declined to average interest rates over the period absent compelling justification, emphasizing that deviations from the statutory scheme require substantial evidence.

Applying ss. 128 and 130 of the Act, the court structured the accrual of prejudgment interest to reflect when losses were actually incurred rather than the breach date alone.

Interest was calculated in stages culminating in a total prejudgment interest award exceeding $33 million.

The moving corporate defendant sought summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a US$1 million investment loan advanced through a convertible debenture for a solar energy project.

The plaintiff alleged the individual defendant acted as agent for the corporate defendant and that the corporation was liable for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and conversion.

The court held that the evidentiary record was incomplete, particularly due to the absence of evidence from key individuals alleged to have negotiated the transaction.

Given unresolved issues concerning agency, corporate identification, and the ultimate destination of the funds, the court concluded that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.

Summary judgment was therefore refused.

Livent Inc., through its Special Receiver, sued its former auditors, Deloitte & Touche, for negligence and breach of contract in failing to detect massive corporate fraud perpetrated by Livent's directing minds, Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb.

The court found that Deloitte failed to conduct its 1996 and 1997 audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), particularly regarding preproduction costs and complex revenue transactions.

The court rejected Deloitte's defences based on the corporate identification doctrine and ex turpi causa, holding that the fraud of the directing minds could not be attributed to the company to shield the negligent auditors.

Damages were assessed at $84,750,000, representing the increase in Livent's liquidation deficit caused by the delayed discovery of the fraud, discounted by 25% for business contingencies.