Abhishek Vaidyanathan

The appellants (defendants at trial) appealed a trial judgment that found them in breach of contract for failing to sell a car dealership to the respondent (plaintiff at trial) and awarded $5 million in damages in lieu of specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that a binding agreement on essential terms had been reached between the parties, despite the absence of a formal written document.

The court also upheld the trial judge's calculation of damages, which reflected the lost opportunity based on the difference between the respondent's offer and a higher third-party offer accepted by the appellants.

The plaintiffs in a proposed consumer protection and competition law class action sought court approval of a third-party funding agreement with Harbour Fund IV.

The plaintiffs, who are of modest means, required the funding to prosecute the action against several large travel booking companies.

The court applied the four-factor test for third-party funding and found the agreement was not champertous, was necessary for access to justice, and adequately protected the defendants' interests.

The motion was granted and the funding agreement was approved.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adduce an expert report at an upcoming merits hearing regarding alleged misleading statements and fraud by the respondents in relation to a solar energy investment fund.

The respondents objected to the report's admissibility.

The Commission first determined that it was appropriate to decide the admissibility issue at a preliminary stage before the merits hearing, applying the Mega-C test.

On the merits of the admissibility, the Commission held that the expert's opinions on solar industry norms were rendered irrelevant by the respondents' undertaking not to lead evidence or make submissions on those points.

The expert's opinion on the reasonable expectations of investors was deemed unnecessary as it fell within the Commission's own expertise.

Consequently, the expert report was ruled inadmissible.

A case conference was held to determine the sequencing and scheduling of proceedings leading up to the leave and certification motions.

The parties agreed on consent to have both motions heard at the same time and established a timetable for the exchange of materials, cross-examinations, and factums, with hearing dates set for June 7-9, 2021.