Andrew Aaron Finkelstein

The plaintiff, Michael Cirone, brought a motion to compel the defendant, Ian Morris, to answer questions taken under advisement at his examination for discovery and to attend a further examination for discovery.

The motion sought production of all bank statements for the firm's Canadian and U.S. Trust Accounts from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, and further discovery arising from these productions.

The defendants opposed on grounds of relevance and solicitor-client privilege, arguing that the trust accounts were not partnership property and that the plaintiff had withdrawn allegations of fraud.

The court found the trust account statements relevant under sections 28 and 29 of the Partnership Act, as they contained information affecting the partnership and were linked to partnership business.

The court also rejected the solicitor-client privilege claim, noting the plaintiff was a former partner entitled to such information.

The motion was granted, compelling production of the trust account statements and ordering a further examination for discovery.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant, International Property Group (Toronto) Ltd., brought a motion to dismiss the action and its counterclaim, arguing that the litigation had settled when it purchased the subject property under a revised agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiffs, Bradley Archibald Sumarah and Robert Steven Andrew Clarke, disputed this, contending the subsequent sale was merely mitigation of damages from the aborted first transaction.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement, the primary terms of which included the revised sale, mutual releases, and dismissal of the litigation without costs.

The action and counterclaim were dismissed.

This is an appeal concerning indemnification for pre-closing tax liabilities following a share purchase agreement (SPA).

The appellants (FQM) sold shares of a Finnish mining company (Kevitsa) to the respondents (Boliden).

A Finnish tax reassessment increased Kevitsa's taxable income for 2012-2016, leading to additional tax liabilities for those years and consequential liabilities for 2017-2018 due to the effective loss of accumulated tax losses.

The application judge found FQM liable under both a general indemnification provision (for breach of representation that there were "no grounds for reassessment") and a tax-specific indemnity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed FQM's appeal, upholding the application judge's finding of liability under the general indemnification provision, specifically confirming that the "no grounds for reassessment" warranty was absolute and that the loss of tax losses was a reasonably foreseeable consequential loss under Ontario contract law principles.

The appellant appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his application against his daughters regarding the transfer of a mortgage from a family company to a family trust.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order arose from an oppression application under the Business Corporations Act, for which the proper appellate route is to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that section 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act or Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure permitted the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal, and declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action against his daughters and their company.

The appellant sought to challenge the validity of a family trust established in connection with an estate freeze in 2007.

The motion judge had struck the claim on the basis of res judicata, collateral attack, and abuse of process, finding that the appellant could have raised the validity issue in the daughters' prior oppression application but failed to do so.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the doctrine of abuse of process alone warranted striking the claim, as allowing the action to proceed would constitute an attempt to relitigate a matter already decided.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for payments under a family agreement.

The respondent estate cross-appealed the dismissal of its claim for return of a $13 million payment characterized as a gift.

The appellant argued that an oral agreement made after the family agreement was signed should be enforceable and would excuse his payment obligations.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the oral agreement preceded the family agreement and was therefore superseded by its integration clause.

The court also upheld the finding that the $13 million was a valid gift with no resulting trust.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant sought a determination that amendments to the Planning Act enacted through the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 exempted a temporary turbine component storage site from municipal planning controls.

The renewable energy developer had obtained a Renewable Energy Approval from the Ministry of the Environment for a wind power project and leased nearby land zoned for aggregate extraction to store turbine components during construction.

The municipality argued that the temporary storage property was not part of a renewable energy project and therefore required zoning and official plan amendments.

The court interpreted the statutory definitions of “renewable energy undertaking” and “renewable energy project” broadly and concluded that temporary component storage integral to construction formed part of the renewable energy undertaking.

As a result, municipal official plans and zoning bylaws did not apply under s. 62.0.2 of the Planning Act.

The plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation by a public issuer and its directors and officers in continuous disclosure documents.

They also requested approval to discontinue common law negligent misrepresentation and oppression remedy claims in favour of the statutory cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiffs met the statutory leave test by demonstrating good faith and a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

It further concluded that discontinuance of the common law and oppression claims would not prejudice class members because the statutory claim avoided reliance issues and certification difficulties.

The action was certified as a class proceeding, with identifiable class members, common issues, and a preferable procedure established.