Adam Brendan Brunswick

The appellants appealed a judgment awarding them financial compensation rather than a 45 percent ownership interest in the respondent corporation under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to give effect to their reasonable expectation that shares would be issued pursuant to a non-binding term sheet.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly considered the appellants' reasonable expectations, correctly concluded the term sheet was not a binding agreement to issue shares, and appropriately exercised his broad remedial discretion in awarding financial compensation instead of shares.

The court considered costs following a mixed-success application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Although the applicants were awarded monetary relief, they failed on significant claims, including a request for 45% ownership and profits of the respondent corporation.

The court found success was divided and ordered each party to bear their own costs, referencing relevant offers to settle and prior case law on divided success.

The applicants sought relief under the Ontario Business Corporations Act for payment of 45 percent of the value of PowerNorth Utility Contractors Inc., arising from previous business dealings.

The court found that the applicants were proper complainants under the Act and entitled to remedies, including repayment of investments and services provided.

The court calculated the amounts owed for cash investment, use of premises, equipment, and services, and awarded interest.

The total award was $399,441.90.

The court declined to order a share of profits and urged the parties to agree on costs, noting divided success.

This costs endorsement follows a prior decision where the Court of Appeal allowed the tenant's appeal in part, extending the lease due to government-mandated COVID closures without rent during the extension, but reaffirming the tenant's obligation to pay rent during the closure periods.

The court ordered the tenant (appellant) to pay $20,000 in all-inclusive costs for the appeal, reflecting the divided success.

No costs were awarded for the motions, action, and counterclaim, as both the landlord and tenant experienced mixed success in those matters, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The tenant appealed a summary judgment that required it to pay rent during government-mandated COVID-19 closures and denied an extension of the lease term.

The Court of Appeal held that the force majeure clause did not excuse the tenant from paying rent during the closures because the clause expressly excluded financial inability.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in interpreting the excusing provision of the force majeure clause.

The Court held that the landlord's obligation to provide the premises was excused during the closures, but the lease term must be extended for an equivalent period, during which the tenant is not required to pay rent.

The plaintiffs requested a case conference to fix a trial date despite failing to complete a mandatory mediation by the court-ordered deadline.

One of the plaintiffs booked a vacation that conflicted with the scheduled mediation date, showing disregard for the court's prior order.

The court refused to dispense with the mediation requirement or hold a trial date as a placeholder, and consequently struck the action from the trial list until mediation is completed and the matter is truly ready for trial.

The Landlord, Niagara Falls Shopping Centre Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against its tenant, LAF Canada Company, for unpaid rent during government-mandated COVID-19 closures.

LAF counterclaimed, seeking rent abatement based on force majeure, frustration of contract"damage or destruction" under the lease, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted the Landlord's motion, finding that the force majeure clause did not excuse rent payment as financial inability was explicitly excepted and payment could cure the failure to perform.

The frustration defense was rejected because the event was contemplated by the force majeure clause.

The "damage or destruction" claim was dismissed as it required physical alteration to the property, not merely inability to use due to the virus.

The unjust enrichment claim failed as the lease provided a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The plaintiffs requested an urgent case conference to schedule a mediation and fix a trial date before the action was administratively dismissed.

One of the plaintiffs objected, citing an upcoming motion regarding the removal of his counsel in a separate action.

The court found it unfair to delay the other plaintiffs and ordered that mediation be held by June 30, 2022, and that the action appear on the trial scheduling court list on April 11, 2022.

The appellant, a real estate development company, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against the respondents regarding a request for proposals for the redevelopment of Toronto waterfront property.

The appellant's proposal was disqualified for listing an ineligible person as an advisor.

When the appellant requested reconsideration, the sponsors declined to rescind the disqualification.

The appellant argued the sponsors owed a duty of fairness in the reconsideration process and that the fairness monitor was inadequately involved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the reconsideration process on a factual basis, without deciding the legal question of whether a duty of fairness was owed.

The plaintiff, CG Acquisition Inc., commenced an action against P1 Consulting Inc., Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (IO), and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) after being disqualified from a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss CG's claim, which was framed in tort, alleging breach of a common law duty of fairness and negligent investigation/service provision during the reconsideration of its disqualification.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no freestanding duty of fairness or care owed to a non-compliant bidder, and that the defendants' actions during reconsideration were reasonable and protected by a limitation of liability clause in the RFP.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim against the defendant David Rosenkrantz, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against Rosenkrantz in his capacity as an officer and director of the Patica Companies, relating to a tax deferral arrangement.

The court found the pleadings lacked the necessary material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability, negligent misrepresentation, or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim and the related crossclaim against Rosenkrantz, but granted leave to amend.

The appellant agreed to purchase a commercial property from the respondent for $9 million, subject to a vendor take-back mortgage.

The transaction failed to close after the parties could not agree on the terms of a secondary financing agreement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent, allowing it to retain $1.2 million in deposits.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the agreement's secondary financing and escrow deed provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's interpretation of the strict terms for secondary financing was commercially reasonable and supported by the record.

The plaintiff purchaser moved for summary judgment seeking return of $1.2 million in deposits paid under an aborted real estate transaction, while the defendant vendor cross‑moved for summary judgment declaring its entitlement to retain the deposits.

The dispute centred on whether the vendor improperly refused to accept a proposed subordination and standstill agreement relating to secondary financing and thereby prevented closing.

The court held that the agreement of purchase and sale permitted secondary financing only if the secondary lender subordinated its rights to the vendor’s vendor‑take‑back mortgage and related security provisions, including an escrow deed provision and an escalator clause.

The purchaser’s proposed financing arrangements would have impaired those security rights and therefore did not comply with the contract.

The court concluded the purchaser failed to close and the vendor was entitled to retain the deposits.

An applicant sought enforcement of Letters Rogatory issued by a United States district court requesting video testimony from Ontario residents in aid of a Florida civil action concerning alleged unsolicited fax advertisements.

The respondents argued the request amounted to a fishing expedition and noted a partial stay of discovery in the underlying action.

Applying the six‑factor test for enforcement of foreign letters rogatory, the court held that the requested evidence was likely relevant, potentially necessary for trial, and not otherwise obtainable.

The court found the request was not contrary to public policy and was not unduly burdensome.

The application to compel examination under oath was granted.

The appellants brought a proposed class action against a washing machine manufacturer, alleging that its front-loading machines were defectively designed and prone to developing mould and unpleasant odours.

They sought damages for pure economic loss, asserting claims for breach of express and implied warranties, breach of the Competition Act, negligence, and waiver of tort.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the certification motion, finding that none of the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

Notably, the court held that policy considerations negate recognizing a duty of care in tort for pure economic loss arising from a defective, non-dangerous consumer product.