Annie (Qurrat-ul-ain) Tayyab

The appellant, Juleth Dawson, appealed a motion judge's judgment for payment and possession under a mortgage, primarily challenging the calculation of interest owing.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision not to reduce the contractual interest rate from 7.5% to 2% due to the respondents' failure to deliver a mortgage statement.

The court distinguished the case from Cheung v. Moskowitz Capital Mortgage, affirming that the discretion to reduce interest is fact-driven and requires evidence of the mortgagee seeking an advantage or the mortgagor suffering prejudice.

As no such advantage was sought or prejudice suffered, and payments had not been made for four years, the appeal was dismissed.

This is a panel review by the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning an appeal regarding the amount owing on an unpaid mortgage loan and possession of property.

The appellant, Juleth Dawson, sought to restore possession of the property after a single judge of the court had previously dismissed her motion for a stay of execution and granted possession to the respondents.

The appellant did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal proceeded on written materials.

The court found no basis to interfere with the single judge's order, noting the appellant's inability to raise funds or pay the mortgage.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

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 plaintiff in two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the canned tuna industry brought a motion for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement.

The plaintiff could not bear the financial burden of funding the required expert evidence.

After extensive negotiations and due diligence, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Lake Whillans Fund.

The court applied the four-factor test for approving third-party funding agreements and found the agreement to be necessary for access to justice, fair, reasonable, and protective of the defendants' interests.

The motion to approve the funding agreement was granted.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the defendants' joint motion to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, having successfully defended the motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the motion was largely duplicative of a prior, successful motion to strike the original statement of claim.

The court determined that while the subject matter overlapped, the motion against the amended pleading did not constitute a "serial attack" justifying substantial indemnity costs.

Instead, costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $17,404.18 (including fees, HST, and disbursements), payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

The defendants brought a joint motion to strike out the amended statement of claim without leave to amend, and for an order dismissing the action, alleging insufficient material facts to support claims of misappropriation and misuse of confidential information.

The court reviewed the amended pleading against its prior decision, which had struck the original statement of claim with leave to amend due to vagueness.

The court found that the amended statement of claim sufficiently particularized the types of confidential information, the products to which they related, and the alleged instances and methods of misappropriation and misuse by each defendant, satisfying the minimum level of material fact disclosure required for such claims.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs purchased a pre-construction condominium unit from the defendant developer.

The tentative occupancy date was delayed by nearly 24 months, and the confirmed occupancy date was subsequently extended multiple times.

The plaintiffs were unable to secure mortgage financing and terminated the agreement, seeking the return of their deposit and damages for breach of contract.

The court found that while the developer breached the agreement by extending the confirmed occupancy date without valid unavoidable delays, the plaintiffs had affirmed the contract by continuing to press for performance.

The court dismissed the action and declined to grant relief from forfeiture, finding that the retained deposit did not constitute a windfall for the developer given its incurred costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, with leave to amend.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the claims were baseless and important to their reputations.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

Instead, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale to both groups of defendants, fixing specific amounts for fees and disbursements, emphasizing that costs are not a mechanical exercise and must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

Two former employees of MD Physician Services Inc. and MD Management Limited appealed a trial judgment finding that they breached non-solicitation agreements with their former employer.

The employees left MD in 2013 to join RBC Dominion Securities Inc., a competitor, and immediately began contacting MD's clients from memory to solicit their business.

The appellants argued the non-solicitation clause was ambiguous and unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the clause was clear and reasonable, and that the employees' conduct constituted a breach of the non-solicitation agreement.

The plaintiffs, MD Physician Services Inc. and MD Management Limited, sued former employees Duane Wisniewski and Joy Sleeth, and their new employer RBC Dominion Securities Inc., for breach of non-solicitation agreements and confidentiality obligations.

The court found the non-solicitation agreements enforceable, rejecting arguments of lack of consideration, non est factum, ambiguity, vagueness, and unreasonableness.

The court also found that Wisniewski and Sleeth breached these agreements by actively soliciting former clients, despite their claims of merely informing them of their new employment.

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. was found vicariously liable for these breaches.

While a technical breach of confidentiality occurred, it was deemed de minimis and not to attract damages.

The trial was limited to liability, with damages to be addressed later.

The plaintiff sought additional reasons following a trial decision regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The court clarified that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $43,154.94, in addition to the $100,000 deposit already released, while dismissing the balance of the $247,552.52 claim.

On costs, the court reduced the defendants' costs award to $10,000 to reflect the plaintiff's partial success in recovering damages, despite the defendants' success on the exchange rate differential issue at trial.

The court also awarded the plaintiff $1,809.42 in pre-judgment interest, adjusting the interest period for the deposit to account for both parties' delay in releasing the funds.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

While the defendants admitted liability for the shortfall in the subsequent sale price and carrying costs, they disputed the plaintiff's claim for an additional $104,397.45.

This amount represented the increased cost of repaying US dollar promissory notes due to exchange rate fluctuations between the original and actual closing dates.

The court dismissed this portion of the claim, finding that the exchange rate loss on undisclosed promissory notes used to finance a different property was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was formed.