Andrew Donald Ferguson

A shareholder sought audited financial statements from a corporation spanning multiple years, arguing the corporation had failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents contended that the shareholder's demand was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision that the limitation period applies to compliance orders seeking enforcement of statutory obligations that correspond to shareholder rights.

The court rejected the argument that compliance orders are merely enforcement mechanisms without corresponding legal rights, holding instead that statutory obligations to provide audited financial statements create three-term legal relations where shareholders hold enforceable rights against the corporation.

The applicants sought the court's intervention under s. 128(5) of the Insurance Act to appoint an umpire for a property damage appraisal after a collision involving a lawnmower and their home, as their appointed appraisers could not agree on a suitable umpire.

The court considered the proposed candidates from both sides, assessing their expertise and impartiality.

While finding no disqualifying bias in any candidate, the court chose an alternative from the respondents' list, Thomas Hanrahan, to ensure fairness given the applicants' objections to the respondents' first choice.

The court declined to award costs, noting that the dispute was made larger than necessary.

The landlords of a bankrupt individual sought a declaration that the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act did not apply to an eviction order obtained from the Landlord and Tenant Board, or, alternatively, an order to lift the stay.

The court found that the eviction order was not a 'debt or liability' and therefore not subject to the stay.

In the alternative, the court would have exercised its discretion to lift the stay, finding it just and equitable given the material prejudice to the landlords.

The bankrupt's request for a sealing order was denied, and costs were awarded to the landlords.

The appellant, a professional accountant and second-time bankrupt, appealed a conditional discharge order requiring him to pay $325,000 to the Trustee.

The application judge found the appellant untruthful, evasive, and in breach of disclosure obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including failing to disclose businesses, records, property, vehicle sales, and loans/inheritance from his mother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the conditional discharge was based on the appellant's conduct and disclosure breaches, not surplus income under s. 68.

The court also addressed improper ex parte communications by the Trustee, finding no miscarriage of justice.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent their neighbours from removing an existing fence and constructing a new one on a municipal laneway.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions (serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).

The court found no serious issue to be tried as the respondents had no current intention to interfere with the fence, especially after the City clarified its policy against new encroachments.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, though leave to amend the Statement of Claim was granted.

This addendum to a January 2022 judgment corrects calculation errors in the original judgment regarding a construction lien claim.

Specifically, the contract price for Boston Pizza was corrected, and two agreed-upon chargebacks were included, changing the judgment amount for Green View Heating & Cooling Inc. to $57,771.41 for that portion of the claim.

The addendum also addresses the matter of costs, awarding the plaintiff $57,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis, apportioned between the Homewood and Boston Pizza claims.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that success on both the appeal and cross-appeal was divided, and therefore ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to lift a stay of execution on a prior summary judgment order, which had been imposed to allow cross-claims between the defendants.

The stay was lifted because one defendant, Andrew Maracle, entered bankruptcy proceedings, making a cross-claim by the other defendant, Andrew Clifford Miracle, impossible.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at 28.82% on the principal amount of $69,417.37, totaling $31,625.37.

Post-judgment interest was also ordered.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis for $8,669.93, considering the defendants' failure to accept settlement offers and lack of their own offers.

The court clarified that Andrew Clifford Miracle remained liable as a partner despite Andrew Maracle's bankruptcy.

The appellant, a manufacturer and supplier of touchscreens, appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act.

The trial judge found that touchscreens supplied to the respondent, a manufacturer of mobile display terminals, were defective due to poor lamination caused by the appellant's subcontractor.

The trial judge awarded damages of $355,193.49 to the respondent for replacement costs, labour, and shipping, offset against outstanding invoices.

The appeal court upheld the trial judgment on both liability and damages, finding no palpable and overriding error and rejecting all four grounds of appeal.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank and the defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The Bank sought judgment on outstanding loans and dismissal of a counterclaim.

The defendants counterclaimed for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract related to a Canada Small Business Financing Loan (CSBFL) and a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC).

The court found the Bank liable for breach of contract and negligence regarding the CSBFL for failing to fully fund the promised amount.

However, the defendants' claim concerning the HELOC's inflated appraisal was dismissed due to accord and satisfaction, as a new agreement was reached and the credit facility was continuously used.

Liability was determined, with damages to be assessed at a separate trial.

This motion involved multiple parties in consolidated construction lien actions concerning two large-scale solar projects.

The plaintiff, Lennox Snow Fence Co. (1982) Ltd., acting as carriage counsel for several lien claimants, sought to approve Vetting Committee recommendations regarding lien quantum and timeliness, and for payment.

ABB Inc., the general contractor, brought a cross-motion to reduce the security it posted for Simpson's Fence (Chatham) Inc.'s liens and to transfer a related breach of trust action.

The court dismissed the motion to approve the Vetting Committee recommendations due to Simpson's Fence's objections and lack of consensus, and denied immediate payment to lien claimants.

However, it ordered the discharge of liens for Clarida, Mod Space, and SMS Rents, and the return of associated security.

The court also denied ABB's request to reduce security for Simpson's Fence's liens, finding genuine issues of fact requiring trial.

Common discoveries and production were ordered for all lien claimants.

The breach of trust action was transferred to Napanee to be heard after the lien claims.

Multiple motions arose in more than 45 construction lien actions concerning five related solar farm projects across Eastern Ontario.

The plaintiff sought transfer and consolidation of numerous lien actions, while the general contractor sought reduction of security posted to vacate liens under the Construction Lien Act.

The court declined full consolidation, instead designating “main actions” for each project and implementing procedural directions to coordinate litigation efficiently while avoiding administrative burdens associated with transferring and merging dozens of proceedings.

The court partially granted the motion to reduce security where duplicate or inflated lien claims were conceded, while adjourning the balance pending further negotiations and analysis of holdback exposure and overlapping claims.