Anne M. Tardif

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and oppression arising from a share purchase agreement dispute.

The defendants argued the negligent misrepresentation claim failed to establish a duty of care and relied on future promises, and that the oppression claim was duplicative of a breach of contract claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a duty of care was sufficiently pleaded and that the oppression claim was not barred merely because a contract existed between the parties.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of $40,000.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in failing to address the appellants’ limitations defence to the “TCS Opportunities” claim.

The appellate court held that the TCS Opportunities claim was a new cause of action, added outside the limitation period, and was therefore statute-barred.

The damages award was reduced accordingly.

The court rejected the appellants’ other ground of appeal regarding the drawing of an adverse inference about source code production, finding no error in the trial judge’s approach.

The defendants requisitioned an order to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the defendants, lawyers, and judges, and sought to relitigate matters already determined in prior proceedings.

The court found the action to be manifestly devoid of merit, consisting of scandalous attacks and an evident attempt to relitigate decided issues.

The action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

This case concerns an appeal from an arbitration award.

The applicants appealed an arbitrator's decision that found the respondent was entitled to 50% of corporate shares based on proprietary estoppel.

The court granted leave to appeal and set aside the arbitrator's award.

The court held that proprietary estoppel in Ontario is currently limited to interests in land and cannot be extended to other forms of property, such as shares, by an arbitrator.

Furthermore, the court found that the email on which the proprietary estoppel claim was based was internally inconsistent, ambiguous, and conditional, thus failing to meet the requirement for a clear and unequivocal promise.

The respondent's claim was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Unit Precast (Breslau) Ltd. and a cross-appeal by Click+Clean GmbH.

Unit Precast appealed the striking out of its claims for conspiracy and intentional interference with contractual relations, and claims asserted personally against Lars Bergmann, arguing the motion judge erred in failing to recognize its business as part of RH20 North America Inc.'s.

Click+Clean GmbH cross-appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, contending the motion judge erred in finding the arbitration agreement inoperative.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding Unit Precast's claims were not adequately pleaded and that Click+Clean GmbH waived its right to arbitrate by seeking substantive relief (motion to strike) from the court.

This is an appeal of an arbitration award concerning the beneficial ownership of shares in a company.

The arbitrator had found that an email created an express trust, granting the respondent 50% of the applicant's personal shares.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator erred in law by allowing the email to overwhelm the terms of a formal trust agreement.

The court varied the arbitrator's decision, ruling that only the formal Burwell Family Trust existed and the email did not create a separate express trust for the personal shares.

The court upheld the arbitrator's jurisdiction regarding the scope of the arbitration and his decision on the Limitations Act.

The issue of proprietary estoppel was remitted back to the arbitrator for determination and final disposition.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order allowing a medical negligence claim to proceed in the Superior Court, despite the plaintiff being a professional football player subject to a collective agreement with an arbitration clause.

The appellant, a radiologist, argued the claim fell under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that the "essential character" of the dispute was medical negligence by an independent third-party physician, not a dispute arising from the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the arbitration process under the collective agreement would not provide effective redress for a medical malpractice claim, particularly regarding costs and expert fees.

The plaintiff, Deirdre Moore, brought an action in Ontario against Dr. Paule Kemgni (a Quebec-based psychiatrist) and Jonathan Kiska (an Ontario resident).

Dr. Kemgni moved to stay the action against her, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was not the proper forum.

The court applied the "real and substantial connection" test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda.

It found that none of the presumptive connecting factors applied to Dr. Kemgni, as her professional activities and the alleged tortious conduct occurred entirely in Quebec, and the damages claimed from her were separate from those claimed against the Ontario-resident co-defendant.

The court distinguished Cesario v. Gondek, noting that the plaintiff's pleadings did not allege joint tortfeasors or inseparable damages.

Consequently, Ontario was found to lack jurisdiction over the action against Dr. Kemgni, and the action against her was stayed.

The court also briefly addressed forum non conveniens, concluding that Quebec would be the more appropriate forum due to the location of the defendant, her practice, applicable law, and witnesses.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.

The applicant, a francophone physician, sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had denied his request for a disciplinary hearing before a bilingual panel, concluding that the use of interpreters was sufficient and constituted a reasonable limit under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the standard of correctness applied to the interpretation of language rights.

The Court found that the applicant has a presumptive right to a bilingual panel under section 86(1) of the Code.

The Court further held that the Committee's conclusion that interpreters were a reasonable limit under section 86(4) was unreasonable because it failed to consider the specific circumstances of the case.

The matter of reasonable limits was remitted to the Committee.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for the appeal and the proceeding below.

The respondent disputed the amount claimed for disbursements, specifically the fees of the appellant's experts.

The Court of Appeal held that expert fees are subject to a reasonableness test and reduced the claimed disbursements, noting the experts were not called to testify and their fees were significantly higher than those of the respondent's experts.

The court awarded the appellant fixed costs for both the appeal and the proceeding below.

The City of Ottawa appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for negligent misrepresentation to Charlesfort Developments Limited.

Charlesfort claimed the City failed to accurately inform it about a water main in an easement during a rezoning process, leading to significant project delays and increased costs for a condominium development.

The Court of Appeal allowed the City's appeal, holding that the City did not owe Charlesfort a private law duty of care.

The Court clarified that the City's undertaking in processing a rezoning application was to fulfill its statutory duty in the public interest, not to protect the developer's economic interests or assure project viability.

The proposed interveners brought a motion for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in a judicial review application.

The underlying application concerns the applicant's right to a disciplinary hearing in French before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interveners could make a useful contribution regarding the application of the French Language Services Act, and that any prejudice to the respondent could be mitigated by allowing a responding factum.

The appellant contractor brought an action for breach of contract after the respondent condominium corporations exercised a contractual termination clause following months during which the respondents knowingly misled the appellant into believing the agreement would not be terminated.

The majority held that the duty of honest performance, as formulated in Bhasin v. Hrynew, precludes active deception and applies to the exercise of all contractual rights, including termination rights; the respondents breached that duty by failing to correct the false impression they had created, which was directly linked to performance of the contract.

A concurring minority agreed on liability but differed on the measure of damages, holding that the duty of honest performance vindicates the reliance interest rather than the expectation interest.

The dissent would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondents' conduct did not materially contribute to the appellant's mistaken belief and did not constitute the active dishonesty required for a breach of the duty of honest performance.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judge's award of damages was reinstated.

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.

This application and counter-application concerned ownership of a 95-acre scout camp property acquired through historical transfers dating back to 1960.

The court held that the unincorporated association lacked legal capacity to be either settlor or beneficiary of a private trust and therefore could not claim a beneficial or proprietary interest in the land.

Applying trust principles, the court found the 1960 conveyance created a valid charitable purpose trust for the promotion of youth welfare through scouting, but held that the 1983 transfer vested absolute legal title in the respondent incorporated body.

In the alternative, the court held that, if absolute title had not passed, the charitable purpose trust continued.

The application was dismissed and the counter-application was allowed in part.

The vendor of commercial condominium units sought a declaration that the purchaser had anticipatorily breached an agreement of purchase and sale and that the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

The application judge found that the agreement came to an end when both parties were unable to close on the appointed date and ordered the deposit returned.

On appeal, the vendor argued that the purchaser had anticipatorily repudiated the agreement and sought to hold the purchaser's signatory personally liable as a guarantor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the purchaser had anticipatorily repudiated the agreement, the vendor's insistence on strict performance on the scheduled date, combined with its own failure to be ready, willing and able to close on that date, resulted in the agreement terminating.

The court also rejected the personal guarantee claim against the signatory.

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 respondents were successful on all issues in the underlying application, which included findings that a party did not anticipatorily repudiate an agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement ended due to both parties' inability to close, and a deposit was to be returned, with no personal liability found for an individual respondent.

The respondents sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant conceded entitlement to costs in the usual course but argued against it due to both parties' inability to close and the respondents' conduct.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding no misconduct warranting withholding costs from the successful parties.

Considering the moderate complexity, importance of issues, and reasonableness of counsel's rates, the court fixed the respondents' costs at $35,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by the applicant within 30 days.