Andrew D. Pelletier

The appellants sought to appeal an order from the Superior Court of Justice that directed the deletion of their third-party claim registered on title under the Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal, on its own initiative, raised the question of jurisdiction.

After hearing submissions, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as section 27 of the Land Titles Act specifies that appeals from orders made by a judge under that Act lie to the Divisional Court.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding refusals on cross-examinations in a proposed class action.

The plaintiff's motion for refusals was largely dismissed, while the Solart defendants' cross-motion regarding the plaintiff's refusals was allowed.

The court considered various factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct." While the plaintiff's counsel's conduct was deemed unreasonable, it did not generally meet this high threshold, except in the case of Martin Yockell, where class counsel's conduct during cross-examination was found to be reprehensible, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The court also addressed the recoverability of costs for pro bono counsel and costs thrown away.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by various defendants during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for a certification motion.

The Solart defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions he refused during his cross-examination.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the questions posed to the defendants were irrelevant, unanswerable, or sought legal opinions.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend and answer questions related to the common issues, as they were relevant to testing the certification requirements.

The plaintiff provided electrical engineering and consulting services for a cannabis grow operation on tribal lands in California.

The project was shut down by a federal law enforcement raid, and the plaintiff was left with unpaid invoices for its work and materials.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, who had provided the funding for the project, arguing that the site manager who hired the plaintiff was acting as the defendant's agent.

The court found that the defendant and the tribe were in a partnership to operate the project, and that the site manager had actual authority to contract on behalf of the partnership.

The defendant was held liable for the unpaid invoices plus contractual interest.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment and to dismiss the action on the basis that the individual plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt and lacked capacity to sue or direct the corporate plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to remove the defendants' counsel, arguing he was in a conflict of interest and a potential witness.

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no substantial risk to the administration of justice.

The court granted the motion to set aside the default judgment, noting the plaintiff failed to disclose her bankruptcy when obtaining it.

Finally, the court dismissed the action as a nullity and an abuse of process, as an undischarged bankrupt cannot commence an action or act as a corporate director under the Business Corporations Act.

This application, proceeding as a hybrid trial, concerned the valuation of CE Williams Import Export Inc. (the "Corporation"), a company jointly operated by the applicant and respondent.

The court addressed disputes regarding the Corporation's value following the dissolution of the parties' business relationship in 2015.

Key determinations included dismissing the respondent's limitations defense, establishing a 5% commission rate for valuation, excluding revenue from the FCR brake flange DT program, including revenue from the Gen V (Magna) program for the full valuation period, and setting specific income for the Bridgestone fastener and Multimatic E2xx programs.

The court normalized owner salaries at $110,000 and variable expenses at 20% of revenue, and ruled that sales volumes should include all of North America.

A terminal value for the Corporation was excluded.

The court also ordered adjustments in the applicant's favour for assets transferred to the respondent's new company and to equalize expenses.

The parties' experts were directed to re-calculate the Corporation's value based on these findings, with the respondent to account for 50% of the adjusted value plus prejudgment interest.

Following a largely unsuccessful motion by the plaintiff to amend his claim and add defendants in a putative class action, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Independent Electrical System Operator ($24,000), the Solart-associated entities ($12,500), Melanie Lacroix ($2,500), and Sunny Natalia ($2,500).

The court declined to award the plaintiff costs against the unsuccessful respondent Nikhil Toshniwal regarding the unopposed document service relief.

The plaintiff in a putative class action regarding unfulfilled solar panel installation contracts brought a motion to amend the statement of claim, add 17 new defendants (including the IESO), and extend the time for service on several existing defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to add the IESO and 15 Solart-associated entities, finding the claims against them were statute-barred as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims more than two years prior.

The court partially granted leave to amend the claim against existing defendants, striking certain proposed paragraphs that improperly pleaded evidence or lacked material facts.

The court granted the extension of time for service on several defendants, finding no actual prejudice to the defence.

Following a civil proceeding, the court addressed costs on consent of the parties.

The successful party was awarded a lump sum for costs inclusive of fees and disbursements.

The court also ordered prejudgment interest on two damages components beginning on specified dates at the statutory rate.

Post‑judgment interest was ordered on the full judgment amount.

The endorsement formalized the agreed financial consequences of the judgment.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal against her former employer.

The employer unilaterally altered the plaintiff's job description from office manager to accountant and revoked her ability to attend bonus trips and partnership meetings.

The plaintiff rejected the new terms, and the employer subsequently terminated her.

The court found that the plaintiff did not resign and that the employer did not have just cause for dismissal.

The court held that the employer repudiated the employment contract by unilaterally changing fundamental terms.

The plaintiff was awarded $256,902.93 in damages, representing the balance of her salary under a five-year contract and the value of a 15% ownership interest promised in the contract.