Arnold Zweig

The applicants, acting as attorneys under 2022 powers of attorney, sought to invalidate 2023 powers of attorney granted to the respondents (the incapable person's sons) on the basis of incapacity.

At a case conference, the court considered interim arrangements for the incapable person's care and discharge from the hospital.

Finding a strong prima facie case that the 2023 powers of attorney were invalid, the court granted an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the respondents from acting under them, thereby leaving the applicants with exclusive authority to move the incapable person to a private rehabilitation facility pending the final hearing.

The plaintiffs challenged the validity of a share transfer agreement entered into between two of the defendants, which resulted in one defendant becoming the majority shareholder of the corporation.

The court applied an objective test to determine the parties' intention to contract and found that the agreement contained all necessary elements of a contract.

The court rejected arguments that the agreement was merely an agreement to agree or that it was invalid due to technical deficiencies under the Business Corporations Act.

The share transfer agreement was declared valid and binding.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant debtor and subsequently brought an action alleging the debtor fraudulently conveyed properties to the other defendants.

The debtor later declared bankruptcy and was discharged.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages against the transferees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to follow the correct procedure under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as the claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate and the plaintiff should have pursued remedies in bankruptcy court rather than seeking damages in civil court.

The defendant insurers brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate and individual plaintiffs following a dispute over insurance coverage for a flooded restaurant.

The court dismissed the motion against the individual plaintiff, finding no evidence of his assets and that his claim was not vexatious.

The court also declined to order security for costs against the corporate plaintiff, despite its lack of assets, because the plaintiff alleged its impecuniosity was caused by the defendants' failure to timely pay business interruption insurance proceeds.

The plaintiff brought a second contempt proceeding against the defendant for breaching the terms of a prior sentencing order arising from an earlier finding of contempt for violating a permanent injunction in a libel action.

The sentencing order required the defendant to remain in Ontario during the currency of a conditional sentence once the stay pending appeal expired.

The defendant remained in Europe beyond the date he was required to return, arguing that he attempted to change flights and believed reasonable efforts to comply were sufficient.

The court held that civil contempt requires knowledge of the order and intentional commission of the prohibited act, regardless of intent to defy the court.

Finding that the defendant knowingly and wilfully failed to return to Ontario despite having reasonable opportunities to do so, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in contempt.

Following an application seeking a declaration that a franchise agreement was of no force or effect and claiming damages, the court determined that credibility issues prevented resolution on an application record and converted the proceeding into an action.

The respondents sought costs on the basis that they were the successful parties on the application.

The applicant argued that the proceeding resolved no substantive issues and that costs should be determined by the trial judge.

The court held that neither party achieved success on the application and that the merits remained to be determined at trial.

Costs were therefore left to the discretion of the trial judge.

The plaintiffs sued their investment advisor and his firm for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the handling of their investment accounts.

The court found that the advisor failed to comply with the 'know your client' rule, engaged in unsuitable short-term trading, and exercised unauthorized discretion, while the firm failed to properly supervise the accounts.

Although no fiduciary duty was owed to the more knowledgeable husband, fiduciary duties were owed to and breached regarding the wife and son.

The court rejected defenses of ratification and limitation periods (except for a late-added tax claim) due to the plaintiffs' lack of knowledge of the misconduct.

Damages were awarded for capital and opportunity losses, reduced by 30% for the plaintiffs' contributory negligence.