Alastair James McNish

The plaintiff, Product Pro Industrial Supplies Inc., moved for an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, Sheam Yee Wang and KTS Consulting, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and unfair competition.

The court found a strong prima facie case that Wang owed fiduciary duties to Product Pro, noting his role as "Director of Operations" and contractual obligations.

Irreparable harm in the form of loss of goodwill and market share was established.

The court also found the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, rejecting the "unclean hands" defense.

An interlocutory injunction was granted for 12 months, restraining the Wang Defendants from soliciting Product Pro's customers or potential customers contacted before March 21, 2019.

The appellant law firm appealed a Master's order allowing the assessment of 13 paid accounts for legal services provided to the respondent client.

The Master had found 'special circumstances' justifying the assessment because the client reasonably believed his matters constituted one ongoing retainer and objected to the firm unilaterally paying its accounts from his settlement funds.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Housen standard of review, found no palpable and overriding errors in the Master's factual findings or application of the law, and dismissed the appeal.

The law firm Chitiz Pathak LLP appealed a Master's decision that found "special circumstances" existed to allow Bee Vectoring Technology Inc. to have two sets of legal accounts assessed under the Solicitors Act, despite being outside the statutory time limits or having been paid.

The Master had found special circumstances for the first and second qualifying transactions but not for general corporate matters.

The law firm argued the Master erred in principle by accepting the client's reasons for delay (being too busy and fear of jeopardizing the relationship) as special circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Master's fact-specific inquiry into special circumstances.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion where the defendants' action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The defendants, as the successful parties, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing for a reduction based on the defendants' limited success on all grounds of the summary judgment motion and alleged conduct that lengthened the proceeding.

The court found no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments regarding distributive costs and alleged conduct.

The court fixed costs of the action at $156,599.20, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs, Michael and Solbyung Coveley, brought a professional negligence action against their former law firm, Thorsteinssons LLP, and several lawyers, alleging negligent advice regarding tax appeals.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of their claim by October 27, 2010, when they received advice that fundamentally contradicted earlier assurances about the strength of their tax appeals.

As the action was commenced on November 2, 2012, more than two years after discovery, the claim was statute-barred.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiffs' claims against three individual defendants for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and to strike the entire claim as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs claimed over $3.8 million in damages arising from a 70-day delay in refinancing their mortgage, alleging the defendants fraudulently registered a charge on their property after a bankruptcy proposal.

The court dismissed the majority of the motion, finding that the pleadings sufficiently alleged personal liability for fraud and negligence against the individual defendants.

However, the court struck redundant claims under the Business Practises Act and cautioned the plaintiffs about the high threshold for proving fraud and the risk of costs.

The defendant abandoned its motion for an interlocutory injunction after failing to obtain interim relief.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing it had made an offer to settle that it beat due to the abandonment.

The court held that under Rule 49, a responding party is not automatically entitled to substantial indemnity costs upon beating an offer, and such an award requires reprehensible conduct, which was absent here.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $17,500.

The applicants sought court approval for the sale of two properties pursuant to a previous order under the Partition Act.

The court approved the sale of the first property to an arm's length purchaser for $550,000.

For the second property, the court approved a sale to a non-arm's length purchaser for $825,000, which was higher than a competing arm's length offer, subject to the arm's length purchaser's right to match the higher price within five days.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion and cross-motion in a dispute concerning the sale of properties under the Partition Act.

The parties, estate trustees and a brother of the deceased, had failed to cooperate in the sale process, necessitating further court intervention to revise the sale protocol.

Both sides sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court determined that success on the motion and cross-motion was divided, and neither party deserved a costs award due to their persistent failure to cooperate in resolving the family dispute.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs, requiring each side to bear their own expenses.

The applicants, estate trustees of Frank Mammone, brought a motion to vary a previous court order for the sale of two properties under the Partition Act, due to the respondents' persistent non-cooperation.

The respondents, Emilio Mammone and Density Garden Enterprises Inc., brought a cross-motion seeking to purchase the estate's interest in the properties.

The court found that the original order was not working and required revision.

It granted the applicants' motion, modifying the sale process to give them unilateral control over retaining a real estate agent and listing the properties, with any offer acceptance subject to court approval.

The respondents' cross-motion was implicitly dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment granting an application for the sale of two jointly-owned properties.

The appellants contended that the deceased had agreed to sell his interest to the surviving brother for $110,000 prior to his death.

The application judge rejected this claim, finding no direct evidence of agreement and no part performance satisfying the Statute of Frauds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's careful analysis of the facts against the governing legal principles.

The applicant, an auditing firm, sought judgment against the respondents for unpaid invoices via an application.

The respondents disputed the fees, alleging a promised discount and challenging the contractual interest rate.

The court considered whether the matter could be resolved by application or required conversion to an action.

Finding material facts in dispute regarding the alleged discount and the need for pleadings to clarify legal positions, the court concluded that the application was not a "clearest of cases" suitable for resolution on a paper record.

The application was therefore converted into an action, and a trial was directed, with a timetable for the exchange of pleadings.

The applicant sought an interim order for the recovery of personal property (tobacco kilns and bins) from the respondent, his former business partner's spouse, located on a Six Nations Reserve.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish "substantial grounds" for ownership or unlawful detention of the property, and that granting the order would effectively nullify the respondent's potential rights before trial, contrary to the mandatory security provisions of Rule 44.04(1).

The plaintiffs, stock promoters from Ontario, sued a British Columbia-based stock promoter and a Colorado-based stock transfer agent for breach of contract related to stock promotion services.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Ontario courts did not have a real and substantial connection to the dispute.

The court found that the contract was formed in British Columbia, not Ontario, and that the defendants did not carry on business in Ontario.

Consequently, Ontario lacked jurisdiction, and the action was dismissed.

The Estate of Frank Mammone sought an order for the sale of two properties and the equal division of proceeds.

The respondent, Emilio Mammone, brought a cross-application to enforce an alleged agreement for the transfer of Frank's interest in the properties for $110,000, purportedly made just prior to Frank's death.

The court found no enforceable agreement, ruling that the respondent's evidence lacked the necessary corroboration under Section 13 of the Ontario Evidence Act and failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds or the doctrine of part performance.

Consequently, the respondent's cross-application was dismissed, and the properties were ordered to be sold as requested by the applicants, with an accounting for Emilio Mammone's management services since Frank's death.

The applicants were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order enforcing an indemnity agreement for $1,170,312.47.

She argued her signature was forged and relied on the defence of non est factum, while also claiming the motion judge should have drawn an adverse inference from a witness's refusal to answer questions during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of forgery or misrepresentation, and concluding the appellant was careless in signing documents without reading them.

The plaintiff surety brought a motion for summary judgment against an individual defendant based on an indemnity agreement guaranteeing reimbursement for payments made under lien bonds issued for several corporate defendants.

The defendant denied signing the agreement and alternatively asserted the defence of non est factum, alleging she had not understood the nature of the document.

The court found on the evidence, including the testimony of a subscribing witness and the defendant’s cross‑examination, that the defendant had signed the agreement.

The court held the defence of non est factum was unavailable because there was no evidence of misrepresentation and the defendant had been careless in signing documents without inquiry.

Summary judgment was granted for the amount paid under the bonds, while the claim for additional fees and expenses was not granted due to lack of evidentiary support.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order requiring a private corporation to disclose documents to a bankruptcy trustee and requiring two directors to submit to oral examinations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trustee required the information to value the bankrupt's shares in the corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no prima facie merit to the argument that the trustee's powers under s. 164 did not extend to such disclosure, and concluding that an appeal would unduly hinder the progress of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Registrar's order requiring a family farming corporation to disclose documents and its directors to submit to examinations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trustee sought the information to value the bankrupt's shares in the corporation.

The appellants argued the trustee's access should be limited to shareholder rights under the OBCA.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trustee is entitled to information relevant to valuing the shares and that there is no conflict between the BIA and directors' duties under the OBCA.

The court granted the trustee's cross-appeal, holding the Registrar lacked authority to order written interrogatories in lieu of an oral examination under s. 163 of the BIA, and awarded costs to the trustee.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer with a 40-year unblemished record, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that denied his 2014 licence to produce tobacco.

The Board had found that the appellant contravened the General Regulations by failing to immediately affix stickers to bales of tobacco, resulting in the seizure and sale of the unlabelled bales.

The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant violated the regulations and found the seizure of the tobacco to be an appropriate penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's unblemished record and cooperation, the Tribunal found the refusal to issue a 2014 licence to be too severe and ordered that the licence be granted.