Ardita Sinojmeri

The appellant, an investment advisor, received a recruitment bonus structured as a loan to be forgiven annually if revenue targets were met.

After the employer failed to credit bonuses for two years, the parties signed an Amended Note extending the repayment period and acknowledging the unpaid bonuses.

Following his termination, the respondent sued to enforce the Amended Note.

The appellant argued the Amended Note lacked fresh consideration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Amended Note was supported by valid consideration, including clarification of the parties' relationship, tax deferral benefits, and an extended interest-free period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside an ex parte order that had extended the time for service of his statement of claim.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to make full and fair disclosure regarding an ongoing Mutual Fund Dealers Association investigation.

The motion judge also dismissed the appellant's cross-motion to extend time retroactively due to prejudice to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and deferring to the discretionary balancing of prejudice.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision that found it had a duty to pay defence costs for the respondents in underlying lawsuits.

The insurer had denied coverage based on alleged material misrepresentation in the insurance application regarding the source of financing for the respondents' real estate development companies.

The Court of Appeal found that the failure to disclose syndicated mortgages as the financing source constituted a material misrepresentation by omission, triggering an exclusion clause in the D&O insurance policies.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was declared to have no duty to pay defence costs and was entitled to recover previously advanced funds.

The plaintiff, Brant Securities Limited, moved for summary judgment to enforce a promissory note against the defendant, Donald Goss.

Mr. Goss resisted enforcement and sought summary judgment on his counterclaim, which included claims for unpaid bonuses, losses from share sales, and wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found the original and amended promissory notes valid and enforceable, rejecting Mr. Goss's arguments regarding failure of consideration, authenticity of signature, and lack of consideration for the amended note.

The court dismissed Mr. Goss's claims for unpaid bonuses (due to resolution by amended note and limitation period) and share sale losses (due to lack of reliance, failure to exercise put right, and limitation period).

However, the court granted Mr. Goss's claim for $33,616.60 in unpaid Employment Standards Act benefits, setting off this amount against the sum owed on the promissory note.

The defendants in two related oppression actions brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer refused questions and to produce a solicitor's file.

The defendants also sought leave to examine a non-party.

The refused questions related to the plaintiffs' consultations with lawyers, which the defendants argued were relevant to their limitation period defence and discoverability.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested information and files were protected by solicitor-client privilege, which had not been waived, and were not relevant to the discoverability issue since the consultations occurred within the two-year limitation period.

The request to examine the non-party was also dismissed as the communications were privileged.

The defendants moved to set aside an ex parte order that extended the deadline for service of the Statement of Claim, alleging the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts and caused prejudice.

The plaintiff cross-moved to validate service.

The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit on the ex parte motion was inadequate, failing to disclose that defendants' counsel had offered to accept service and that the MFDA was also investigating the defendants for the same conduct.

The court determined that the defendants suffered prejudice because they entered into a settlement agreement with the MFDA, making admissions that would impair their defence in this action, under the belief that the litigation was not proceeding.

The defendants' motion was granted, and the ex parte order was set aside.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.