Alyssa Tomkins

The defendants sought over $300,000 in substantial indemnity costs following partial success on a motion to strike the plaintiff's pleadings.

The plaintiff, acting as trustee in bankruptcy for a company involved in a Ponzi scheme, opposed the costs request and argued that costs should be reserved.

The court declined to fix costs immediately, finding it more just to reserve the costs of the initial motions pending the outcome of further motions to strike the reamended statement of claim.

The Republic of Korea (South Korea) moved to dismiss Best Theratronics Ltd.'s breach of contract action and set aside an injunction preventing The ICICI Bank of Canada from disbursing funds under a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC).

Best Theratronics Ltd. cross-moved to extend the injunction.

The court found that a forum selection clause in the contract granted exclusive jurisdiction to South Korean courts for the main action between Best and South Korea, leading to a stay of those proceedings in Ontario.

However, the court extended the temporary injunction against The ICICI Bank of Canada, noting that the SBLC was governed by Ontario law and the Bank was not bound by the forum selection clause.

The injunction was continued on terms to allow Best to pursue remedies in South Korea, with provisions for its eventual termination.

The plaintiff, Richcraft Homes Ltd., initiated an action against several defendants, including Urbandale Corporation, Urbandale Construction Limited, and Lawrence Weinstein, seeking declaratory relief for oppressive conduct, breach of contract, and punitive damages related to land development projects.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21 to strike Richcraft's claims, arguing they failed to plead material facts supporting a reasonable prospect of success.

The court granted the motions, finding that Richcraft did not demonstrate compensable injury or a likelihood of threatened oppressive conduct, nor an independent actionable wrong for punitive damages.

Leave to amend was denied due to the absence of proposed amendments or supporting evidence.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which sought contribution and indemnity, damages, and disgorgement arising from the defendants' alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme operated by Golden Oaks.

The court struck the claims for contribution and indemnity without leave to amend, finding no common liability to third parties and no viable duty of care owed to the unsecured creditors.

The claims for damages were struck with leave to amend to properly plead the losses suffered by the company.

The claims for disgorgement and accounting were permitted to proceed.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought costs after successfully prosecuting seventeen lawsuits against individuals and companies who received payments from a bankrupt entity.

The court determined reasonable costs, discounting for settled actions and applying Small Claims Court caps where applicable, ultimately awarding $232,500 in total costs and allocating them among the defendants.

The Kanata Greenspace Protection Coalition brought a motion to intervene as an added party in an application between the City of Ottawa and Clublink Corporation ULC regarding the proposed redevelopment of a golf course into residential housing.

The City sought to enforce a 40% green space agreement, and the Coalition, representing local residents, sought to support the City's position.

The court granted the Coalition restricted party status, finding that its members had a direct interest in the subject matter and could make a useful contribution without unduly delaying the proceedings or adding new issues.

The respondents, Trillium Gift of Life Network and University Health Network, brought motions to dismiss and transfer applications challenging the constitutionality of liver transplant waitlist criteria for patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

UHN moved to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Charter did not apply to its clinical decisions.

Trillium moved to transfer the application to the Divisional Court, arguing it involved the review of a statutory power.

The Superior Court dismissed both motions, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Charter did not apply to UHN's adoption of the criteria, and affirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies without bifurcating the proceedings.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., a company that operated a Ponzi scheme, brought 17 actions against various investors to recover payments made to them prior to the bankruptcy.

The Trustee sought recovery under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for preferential payments and transfers at undervalue, and under the common law for unjust enrichment regarding usurious interest and commission payments.

The court found that Golden Oaks was a Ponzi scheme and was insolvent when the payments were made.

The court granted the preference claims against certain defendants who were not dealing at arm's length with the company.

The court also granted the unjust enrichment claims for the return of usurious interest payments, finding that the promissory notes providing for criminal rates of interest were illegal and did not constitute a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The claims for return of commission payments were dismissed, as the referral agreements did not violate the Securities Act and provided a juristic reason for the payments.

The plaintiff developer sued the defendant municipality for negligent misrepresentation regarding a rezoning application for a condominium project.

During the rezoning process, the municipality failed to inform the developer about a large, high-pressure water main located in an adjacent easement, mistakenly advising that it was a trunk sewer.

The developer relied on this information and proceeded with the purchase and development.

At the site plan approval stage, the municipality's engineers objected to the proposed underground parking garage due to the risks posed to the water main, forcing the developer to redesign the project and incur significant delays and costs.

The court found that the municipality owed a duty of care to the developer, breached that duty through negligent misrepresentations, and that the developer reasonably relied on those representations.

The court awarded the developer $4,496,384 in damages and pre-judgment interest.

The applicants, owners of a restaurant offering shisha, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the City of Ottawa from enforcing a bylaw prohibiting the use of water pipes in indoor public places, pending their Charter challenge.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm due to the corporate applicant's potential lack of standing for Charter damages.

However, the balance of convenience favoured the City, as the public interest in protecting health from second-hand smoke outweighed the applicants' financial losses and temporary limits on cultural traditions.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The appellants appealed from an order dismissing their motion to strike claims for usurious interest and unlawful commissions in actions brought by the trustee in bankruptcy of the promoters of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

The appellants argued the order was final because it determined a question of law regarding whether the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the motion judge did not formally invoke the applicable rule for determining questions of law, the formal order simply dismissed the motion without making a binding determination, and the motion was premature as pleadings had not closed.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy was successful in obtaining an order annulling the debtor's proposal in bankruptcy and defeating a cross-motion for permission to sue the Trustee for $10 million.

The Trustee sought costs of $82,958.01.

The court awarded the requested amount on a full indemnity basis, noting the factual complexity, unfounded allegations of professional negligence against the Trustee, and the fact that the Trustee would ordinarily recover its full costs.

The costs were ordered to be recoverable as a priority claim under section 136(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act against the funds held in the failed proposal.

The appellant guaranteed a loan made by the respondent bank to a corporation.

After the corporation defaulted on its obligations, the bank demanded payment and successfully moved for summary judgment against the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge misinterpreted the guarantee, failed to consider whether the corporation was given a reasonable time to pay, and erred in rejecting his claim for an equitable discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the guarantee and concluding that the appellant failed to establish that the bank's conduct caused the corporation's default.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bankruptcy trustee's claims for the return of usurious interest and unlawful commissions paid as part of a Ponzi scheme.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and that breach of statute is not a valid civil cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the trustee completed its investigation into the complex fraud.

The court also granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the pleadings to explicitly frame the claims in unjust enrichment.

The Proposed Intervenors brought a motion for leave to intervene in an application to set aside an arbitration award arising from the receivership of a Ponzi scheme.

The Proposed Intervenors argued they had an interest in the subject matter, would be adversely affected, and shared common questions of law or fact, as they faced similar claims in separate proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Proposed Intervenors had no direct interest in the subject matter, would not be adversely affected by the judgment, and would not make a useful contribution without causing injustice or delay to the immediate parties.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor for over $1 million owed by a corporate debtor.

The guarantor argued the demand for payment was invalid because the bank did not provide reasonable time to pay, and that the bank's conduct caused the debtor's default, entitling him to a discharge.

The court applied the Hryniak framework and granted summary judgment, finding the guarantee's language clear, the right to payment crystallized upon default, and no bad faith by the bank.

The respondents brought a motion to consolidate an application with an action.

During cross-examinations on affidavits, the applicant refused to answer several questions, leading to this refusals motion.

The Master ordered the applicant to answer questions regarding the merits of the application and his understanding of contractual documents, finding that the parol evidence rule does not preclude such questions at the cross-examination stage.

However, the Master upheld the applicant's claim of solicitor-client privilege over documents in a mediation file, finding no blanket waiver of privilege.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed its request for an increase in its chicken processing quota.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the date of rebasing was supported by evidence and reasonable.

The Court also held that the applicant could not rely on a contract it had expressly abandoned before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was not required to provide reasons for declining to depart from its usual policies.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy farm operation and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy restricting the transfer and merger of milk quota.

They wished to permanently transfer the newly acquired quota to their home farm without renovating the purchased facilities or milking there for the required five years.

The Tribunal found the DFO's quota transfer restrictions valid and authorized by the Milk Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an exemption, finding the appellants' reasons did not justify circumventing the policy.

However, the Tribunal reduced the conditional penalty for failing to return the cows to the purchased farm from a 20% quota reduction to a 10% reduction.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy operation but only acquired a fraction of the associated land.

They moved the purchased herd to their home farm under a temporary shared facilities agreement, intending to renovate the purchased farm.

They later abandoned renovation plans and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy to permanently merge the quotas at their home farm.

The DFO denied the exemption and ordered the cows returned to the purchased farm, imposing a 20% quota reduction penalty if they failed to comply.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's denial of the exemption, finding the appellants' desire for efficiency did not justify circumventing quota transfer policies.

However, the Tribunal found the 20% penalty disproportionate and reduced it to 10%.