Andrew McCoomb

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant mother struggled with alcohol abuse, leading to the respondent father becoming the primary caregiver for their three children.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, with the children residing primarily with the father and the mother having parenting time 5 out of 14 days subject to alcohol monitoring.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including valuing the father's security business on the date of marriage, determining the parties' incomes for support purposes, and addressing claims of unjust enrichment and resulting trust.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $882,115.16 and retroactive spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay retroactive section 7 expenses.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion to amend her pleadings to add her spouse's corporation as a third party, seeking repayment of alleged demand loans.

The corporation opposed the motion, arguing that the limitation period had expired because the original family law application constituted a demand for payment.

The court allowed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the original application, which named only the spouse, constituted a clear and unequivocal demand to the corporation itself.

The applicant was permitted to amend her reply to add the corporation as a party.

ESW Capital, LLC applied for exemptive relief from the minimum tender requirement under the Securities Act in connection with its proposed take-over bid for Optiva Inc. The proposed bid was opposed by two other control block shareholders, Maple Rock and EdgePoint, who announced they would not tender their shares.

ESW sought to exclude their shares from the minimum tender calculation.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances or abusive conduct by the target, bidder, or control block shareholders that would warrant altering the recalibrated bid regime and undermining minority shareholder choice.

The appellants, an unsuccessful bidder and a dissenting shareholder, sought a stay of an order approving a plan of arrangement by which NordStar Capital LP would acquire Torstar Corporation, pending their appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the appellants failed to establish a serious issue for appeal, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court noted that the appellants lacked standing, the hearing process was fair, and the board acted reasonably in rejecting the unsolicited offer in light of hard lock-up agreements.

Torstar Corporation sought court approval for a plan of arrangement to sell all its shares to NordStar Capital LP for $0.74 per share.

The arrangement was overwhelmingly approved by shareholders.

Competing bidder CMMH and dissenting shareholder Patrick Collins objected, alleging inadequate disclosure and a flawed bidding process due to hard lock-up agreements.

The court found the arrangement had a valid business purpose, the process was conducted in good faith with professional advice, and the objections were resolved fairly.

The court emphasized the weight given to the shareholder vote and the Board's business judgment, particularly in uncertain times, and approved the arrangement.

The plaintiff franchisor requested the immediate scheduling of a motion for injunctive relief on the basis of urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the defendant franchisees opposed.

The court found that the dispute, which centered on unpaid royalty fees and had been ongoing since September 2019, did not meet the criteria for urgent scheduling under the court's COVID-19 notices.

The request for immediate scheduling was denied, and a timetable was set for the motions to be heard at a later date.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of confidence, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment arising from the defendant allegedly sharing the plaintiff's confidential pricing information with a competing bidder.

The court dismissed the motion to strike for most claims, finding they met the low threshold of disclosing a 'germ or scintilla' of a cause of action.

However, the court struck the claim for intentional interference with economic relations, as the pleading failed to allege an unlawful act against a third party, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend.

The defendant, Toronto Hydro Corporation, brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action due to the plaintiffs' failure to pay approximately $45,000 in interlocutory costs orders.

The court, balancing the interests of allowing a litigant their day in court and enforcing court orders, granted the plaintiffs a final opportunity to comply with the outstanding costs orders.

The action was stayed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs in six equal monthly installments, with leave for the defendant to seek dismissal if payments default.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The proposed amendments sought to add new causes of action, add a new defendant, and claim declaratory relief regarding the installation of smart meters.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that the proposed amendments were untenable, pleaded evidence rather than material facts, raised statute-barred claims, and constituted an abuse of process by attempting to revive an abandoned claim for reconnection of electrical service.

The appeal was dismissed, with leave granted to deliver a new draft amended claim.

The plaintiff sought to introduce preliminary inquiry transcripts as evidence in support of a pending Mareva injunction motion.

The defendants opposed, arguing that a publication ban from the criminal proceedings prohibited their use and that the transcripts were inadmissible hearsay.

The court ruled that filing the transcripts would breach the publication ban, they were not "otherwise admissible by law" under the Ontario Evidence Act, and their evidentiary purpose in the preliminary inquiry differed from the Mareva injunction motion, leading to actual prejudice for the defendants.

Consequently, the plaintiff was not permitted to rely on the transcripts.

The defendant Sherwin H. Shapiro brought a motion to strike new causes of action (knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty and knowing assistance in breach of trust) added by the plaintiff, Ontario Professional Fire Fighter’s Association (OPFFA), in a Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim.

Shapiro argued that these new claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act and that the filing of the Fresh Claim constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the abuse of process argument, finding the plaintiff's actions technically consistent with Rule 26.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike based on limitation periods under Rule 21.01, reiterating that such issues, particularly those involving discoverability, are typically inappropriate for determination at the pleadings stage under Rule 21 and are better suited for summary judgment or trial after pleadings have closed.

The court found that the material facts necessary to support the new causes of action were implicitly present in the original claim, and it was not plain and obvious that the claims were statute-barred.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues following previous endorsements.

The court directed the parties to draft separate orders for six prior motions.

The court also scheduled a Rule 21 motion brought by the defendant Shapiro regarding the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and scheduled the plaintiff's renewed motion for a Mareva injunction.

Finally, the court set a timetable for written submissions regarding the Atkinson defendants' request to pay outstanding costs orders from funds held in trust.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on a Ministerial reference, arguing they were denied procedural fairness because the Minister's question was inaccurately conveyed to them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on a Ministerial reference is an advisory opinion that does not determine legal rights and is therefore not reviewable on procedural fairness grounds.

Furthermore, the court found that the procedural defect did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the applicants had ample opportunity to address the core issues and the outcome would not have been different.

The Atkinson defendants brought a motion seeking approval to withdraw funds held in trust to pay legal fees and costs awards.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the funds were subject to a solicitor's undertaking given by the Atkinson defendants' counsel to hold them in trust pending the resolution of the dispute.

The court found that a clear and unambiguous undertaking existed, binding the funds to remain in trust until entitlement was determined by the court or by agreement between the parties.

Consequently, the Atkinson defendants' request to access the funds was denied.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents breached Ontario securities law by mishandling principal protected notes and causing a $1.2 million deficiency, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered the respondents to jointly and severally disgorge $1,181,397.89, representing the funds obtained through unsupported redemption requests.

The Commission also imposed administrative penalties of $200,000 each, 10-year market participation bans, and joint and several costs of $487,950.34, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the deliberate and dishonest nature of the misconduct.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff trade union's action for lack of standing, to stay the action pending related criminal proceedings, and to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff union alleged the defendants misappropriated funds intended for the union's Retiree's Cancer Claim Fund.

The court found the plaintiff had standing as a trade union acting within its labour relations functions.

The court declined to stay the civil action, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite pending criminal charges against two defendants.

On the motions to strike, the court upheld most claims against the primary defendants but struck the claims against the defendant lawyer with leave to amend, finding insufficient material facts pleaded regarding his involvement.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral award under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The court found that the arbitrator committed a reviewable error by deciding the issue on a theory not argued by the parties, which amounted to the applicant being unable to present its case.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the award.

The court found that the arbitrator's ultimate decision on the merits was reasonable, the contract interpretation involved mixed fact and law subject to deference, and remitting the matter for a rehearing would serve no practical purpose.

The plaintiff, Schroeder & Schroeder Inc. (SSI), and the defendants, Stewardship Ontario (SO) and Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance Inc. (CSSA), brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

SSI claimed damages for breach of the Copyright Act, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and breach of contract related to the sub-licensing of an enterprise information software system (EIS System) it helped implement for SO.

SSI asserted intellectual property rights in the system.

The defendants sought dismissal of the action, arguing SSI had no intellectual property rights in the EIS System, which they contended belonged to SAP.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the issues, particularly regarding SSI's copyright in the EIS System and the technical aspects of its configuration, required a trial and could not be resolved on the existing evidence.

A credibility issue regarding discoverability of the sub-license also precluded summary judgment on the limitations defence.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order denying an amendment to the class definition to include all downstream purchasers of LCD panels and products.

The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, noting that the motion judge properly exercised discretion under the Class Proceedings Act and correctly characterized the plaintiff's attempt to re-litigate a previously settled issue as an abuse of process.

Leave to appeal was denied.