Anthony Labib

This decision concerns a dispute between Sound Insurance Services Inc. and Chris Hossein, a former insurance producer, and his new employer, Greensides & Breen Insurance Brokers Limited.

The case addresses breach of contract, inducement of breach, breach of confidence, and civil conspiracy arising from the failed transfer of a book of business.

The court found Mr. Hossein liable for breach of contract and breach of confidence, and Greensides liable for inducing the breach.

Damages were assessed at $350,000, plus interest and costs.

The appellant company entered into an agreement with the respondent mining company to introduce business opportunities in exchange for a commission.

The appellant claimed an $8,080,000 commission after the respondent invested in a third-party company.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding that the respondent and the third party had introduced themselves before the appellant's involvement and that the appellant only provided publicly available information.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants commenced an action for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression, which an associate justice stayed under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, based on arbitration clauses in the parties' agreements.

The appellants appealed to a Superior Court judge, who dismissed the appeal on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the further appeal, noting that under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, there is no appeal from a court's decision to stay a proceeding under s. 7(1).

The decision addresses a motion by Greensides & Breen Insurance Brokers Limited to compel Sound Insurance Services Inc. and Chris Hossein to answer certain refused questions and to provide further and better answers to undertakings arising from examinations for discovery.

The court found that Greensides did not require leave to bring the motion, refused to compel answers to the disputed questions, but ordered Sound to provide more detailed responses to five undertakings.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants sought three orders: approval of a factoring portfolio purchase agreement, approval for distribution of proceeds from a property sale, and permission for a creditor to sell certain vehicles.

The court approved the distribution of Chehalis property proceeds to Roynat.

For the Regions vehicles, the court granted the order allowing Regions to take possession, setting a 30-day retrieval period and approving storage costs of $35/day.

The motion for approval of the JD Factors Purchase Agreement was adjourned to a later date, as Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc. objected, claiming ownership of the receivables and requiring more time to prepare its position.

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and other applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants sought court approval for three main items: a pre-filing agreement of purchase and sale for the Bolingbrook Property, approval of the Monitor's First and Second Reports, and an amendment to the Amended and Restated Initial Order to allow the sale of redundant, surplus, or non-material property up to certain financial thresholds without further court approval.

The court, applying the Soundair Principles, found the pre-filing sale to be in the best interests of stakeholders, noting the extensive negotiations and lack of opposition.

All requested relief was granted, with the court emphasizing the practical benefits of the proposed amendments for maximizing recovery and minimizing professional fees.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against Smith & Wesson for design negligence following the Danforth Shooting, where a stolen M&P®40 handgun without "authorized user" (smart gun) technology was used to kill and injure multiple people.

The plaintiffs argued that Smith & Wesson was negligent in failing to incorporate authorized user technology into the handgun's design.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

Specifically, the plaintiffs did not provide expert evidence from a firearm design expert to establish some basis in fact that the absence of authorized user technology constituted a design defect, or that an alternative design was feasible without impairing the handgun's utility for its intended military and police users.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought two motions: one seeking leave to file third and fourth supplementary affidavits from an expert, Dr. Jooyoung Lee, and another compelling the defendant, Smith & Wesson Corp., to provide answers and documents from a cross-examination.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the supplementary affidavits were not relevant to the certification criteria and that the requested discovery questions were primarily merits inquiries or fishing expeditions, disproportionate to the needs of the certification motion.

This motion to quash, heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arose in the settlement administration phase of a class action concerning price-fixing of cathode ray tube products.

Class Counsel, representing the plaintiff Fanshawe College, sought to quash an appeal brought by Class Action Capital Recovery LLC (CAC), a third-party filer for claimants.

The grounds for the motion were that the Distribution Protocol prevented further appeals and that CAC lacked standing.

The Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, CAC had standing as an agent for its clients, and the appeal was not time-barred, as the appeal period began when the lower court's order achieved sufficient clarity.