Alysha Shore

The applicants brought an application for damages and an accounting arising from an alleged breach of contract relating to referral fees between two law firms.

The matter was forwarded to the judge for determination in writing, having been incorrectly treated as a consent or unopposed motion.

Upon reviewing the full record, including the respondent's opposing materials, the judge concluded that a disposition based on the written record was not appropriate due to material facts in dispute and legal issues requiring a hearing or trial.

The matter was returned to Civil Practice Court for scheduling.

The plaintiffs, Jonathan Persaud and Fleetfind Technologies Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid commissions from the defendant, Solar Power Networks Inc. The core dispute involved the interpretation of a "Commission Agreement" regarding the scope and duration of commission payments for solar project leases.

The plaintiffs claimed entitlement to $2,000,000 in commissions for the first 60 MW of sites, regardless of Mr. Persaud's direct involvement or the timing of revenue generation.

The defendant argued the commissions were time-limited and tied to Mr. Persaud's role as Vice President of Sales.

The court rejected both parties' extreme interpretations, finding that commissions were payable on the first 60 MW of sites for which the defendant obtained leases, only if and when those projects generated revenue, up to a maximum of $2,000,000, and that the obligation survived termination of the relationship.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on liability but required further submissions for damages calculation.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce answers to questions refused on cross-examination and a motion to adduce fresh evidence, following an adjournment of an underlying motion to vary a Mareva order.

The non-parties sought costs for the adjournment and the motions.

The court found the non-parties were mostly successful overall and awarded them costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amounts at $9,610 for one non-party and $4,310 for the other after assessing the reasonableness of the claimed fees.

The plaintiff, Trade Capital Finance Corp., brought a motion to compel Carlo De Maria to answer questions from his cross-examination on an affidavit supporting a motion by non-parties 2454904 Ontario Inc. and Red Quest Holdings Inc. to vary a Mareva Injunction.

The plaintiff also sought to admit fresh evidence related to banking activities of The Cash House Inc. and DoUknow Inc. The court granted the motion to admit fresh evidence to the extent it supported compelling an answer to one specific question (Q121) regarding DoUknow Inc.'s operating capital, finding it relevant to the true value of The Cash House Inc. shares and the proposed transaction.

All other questions and undertakings from the May 17, 2016 cross-examination were dismissed, as were undertakings from a November 25, 2015 cross-examination, which were deemed moot.

The defendant appellants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to set aside a Mareva injunction.

They argued that the motion judge relied on a purported fraud exception excusing the requirement to show dissipation of assets and that conflicting authorities existed on that issue.

The court found that the motion judge had in fact identified evidence of dissipation of assets and had not relied solely on any fraud exception.

The applicants also failed to establish that the decision was open to very serious debate or that the proposed appeal raised an issue of general importance.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion arising from a settlement agreement containing non‑solicitation covenants and a liquidated damages clause.

The defendants admitted soliciting a number of the plaintiff’s customers in breach of the agreement after payments under the settlement concluded.

The court drew an adverse inference from the defendants’ refusal to provide database information requested in cross‑examination and inferred additional solicitations.

Applying the contractual liquidated damages clause of $1,000 per wrongfully solicited customer, the court assessed liability for 227 breaches.

Punitive damages were also awarded due to deliberate, profit‑motivated and bad‑faith conduct undermining the purpose of the agreement.

The applicant son sought to have the deceased's pre-death transfer of the family home to her husband and children clawed back into her estate as a 'gift mortis causa' under s. 72(1)(a) of the Succession Law Reform Act, to satisfy his dependent support claim.

The deceased had transferred the property as joint tenants shortly after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was absolute rather than conditional on her death, and noted that the doctrine of donatio mortis causa generally does not apply to real property.

Following settlement of an eviction application by a housing co‑operative concerning rental arrears and repeated late payments, the only remaining issue was costs.

The co‑operative sought full indemnity costs exceeding $21,000 pursuant to its by‑laws and the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent tenant argued the amount was disproportionate and would cause undue hardship given her financial circumstances and that arrears had already been paid.

The court held that while the by‑laws contemplated substantial indemnity costs, the court retained discretion to reduce the award where full indemnity costs would be unfair or unduly onerous.

Considering proportionality, hardship, and the simplicity of the application, the court reduced the costs substantially.