Avi Bourassa

Two equal 50% shareholders in a lakeside condominium development project in Burlington, Ontario (Nautique Lakefront Residences) sought court guidance on separating their partnership following an acrimonious impasse.

The applicant, an investor providing approximately 90% of equity funding, proposed a court-imposed shotgun buy-sell mechanism.

The respondent proposed a buyout under section 207 of the Business Corporations Act using a valuation report prepared by KSV Soriano Inc. The court found that both parties had engaged in oppressive conduct but determined that separation was necessary to preserve the project.

The court ordered a section 207 buyout by the respondent at a price representing the midpoint between two valuation scenarios, rejecting the shotgun mechanism due to procedural fairness concerns arising from late notice and the respondent's good faith participation in case management conferences.

The plaintiffs sought leave to issue and register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a residential property, claiming a 50% ownership interest based on an alleged oral agreement and part performance.

The defendant denied a firm agreement, asserting a temporary arrangement and having returned the plaintiffs' payments with interest.

The court applied the two-part test for CPLs, considering whether there was a reasonable claim to an interest in land and the equities.

Despite finding a triable issue regarding the oral agreement, the court concluded that the equitable factors did not favor granting the CPL, particularly as damages were calculable and deemed an adequate remedy.

The motion was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich Order against the Defendants, alleging fraud and misappropriation of approximately $700,000 in foreign currency reserves.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, irreparable harm, and a serious risk of asset dissipation by the Defendants.

Consequently, the Mareva injunction was granted to restrain the Defendants from dissipating assets, and a Norwich Order was issued compelling financial institutions to disclose information for asset tracing.

The Plaintiffs' alternative request for a Certificate of Pending Litigation was not addressed given the primary relief granted.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs across six intertwined proceedings.

The court awarded Maria Konstan $425,000 in all-inclusive costs against Samuel Jacob Berkovits and Saeed Hosseini.

This award was based on Maria's successful abuse of process claim, despite her malicious prosecution claim being dismissed, and the finding of Berkovits's malicious conduct.

Conversely, no costs were awarded between Samuel Jacob Berkovits and Harold Gerstel, as both parties engaged in reprehensible conduct and attempted to mislead the court, which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This endorsement addresses three causes of action (conspiracy, abuse of process, and harassment) advanced by the Gerstel parties in their counterclaims, which were not explicitly determined in the court's prior Reasons for Decision.

The court dismissed all three claims.

The conspiracy claim failed due to a lack of common design between the alleged conspirators.

The abuse of process claim failed because the primary objective of the opposing parties' action was to redress civil wrongs, not for a collateral purpose.

The novel tort of harassment was not recognized, as the facts of the consolidated proceedings did not meet the high threshold for creating a new legal remedy.

Six consolidated actions arising from a bitter, multi-year dispute between two competing 'cash for gold' businesses in Toronto.

The feud escalated into allegations of a 'murder for hire' plot, resulting in criminal charges against an employee that were later withdrawn.

The employee sued for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

The court found the hitman liable for malicious prosecution and both the hitman and the competitor liable for abuse of process, awarding the employee $221,775 in damages.

In the corporate actions, the court found the opposing business owner liable for nuisance and intentional interference with economic relations for using 'sandwichboarders' to harass the competitor's business, awarding $200,000.

The competitor was awarded $50,000 for defamation regarding statements made to a newspaper.

The opposing business owner's claims for defamation and misappropriation of personality were dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff, a tenant of the defendant, brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the defendant's property to prevent its impending sale.

The plaintiff claimed an entitlement to a portion of the sale proceeds based on an alleged agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim for monetary damages did not constitute a proprietary interest in the land, which is a prerequisite for a CPL.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,606.64 due to the plaintiff's strategic attempt to thwart the sale.

During an ongoing civil trial, the court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of an affidavit sworn by a non-party in a separate, sealed family proceeding.

The affidavit had come into the possession of one of the defendants.

The objecting parties argued the affidavit was protected by solicitor-client privilege and was obtained unlawfully.

The court held that the sworn affidavit filed in court was not a privileged communication and that the sealing order did not reinstate privilege.

The court ruled the affidavit admissible for impeachment purposes as a prior inconsistent statement.

This costs endorsement followed successful appeals by the Fram and Kerbel entities against Romandale Farms Limited.

Romandale had initially been awarded substantial indemnity costs for four intertwined actions tried together.

The Court of Appeal, applying the principle of overall success rather than issue-by-issue determination, found that Fram and Kerbel were entitled to partial indemnity costs for the original actions, having achieved overall success on appeal and having beaten a joint settlement offer.

The appellants, Fram and Kerbel, appealed a trial judgment that declared a 2005 land sale agreement between Kerbel and Romandale at an end.

The trial judge had found that Kerbel repudiated the agreement by entering into a settlement agreement with Fram that delayed the closing of the land sale until after secondary plan approval.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that Romandale was estopped by convention from asserting that the settlement agreement breached the 2005 agreement, as all parties had shared the assumption that the sale could only close after secondary plan approval.

The Court also held that the 2005 agreement was not frustrated or void for mistake, Kerbel's claim was not limitation-barred, and Kerbel was entitled to specific performance because the lands were unique.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a decade-long, four-action litigation where Romandale Farms Limited was the successful party.

Romandale sought substantial indemnity costs against Fram and Kerbel (and their associated entities).

The court found that Fram and Kerbel's conduct throughout the litigation was "reprehensible and deserving of sanction," including pursuing meritless claims for tactical reasons, making disingenuous arguments, and principals giving false evidence.

The court awarded Romandale substantial indemnity costs of $2,708,651.57, inclusive of fees and disbursements, payable jointly and severally by Fram and Kerbel, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the complexity, stakes, and the losing parties' conduct.

This endorsement followed the twelfth case management conference, addressing the progression of the action towards trial.

The court noted the completion of pleadings and examinations for discovery.

A key issue was the non-compliance of one defendant with a previous cost order of $44,000.

The plaintiffs, prioritizing trial scheduling, reserved their right to seek remedies for non-compliance.

The court issued specific directions for trial readiness, including deadlines for expert reports, filing of the Trial Record, and a certification form for setting pre-trial and trial dates.

Parties were also directed to confer on adopting a summary trial format versus an ordinary trial.

At the eleventh case management conference in this action, the plaintiffs sought an expedited trial date and an order for a summary trial under Rule 76.12.

The defendants opposed the summary trial process and sought time to complete discoveries and deliver responding expert reports.

The court declined to order a summary trial at this stage but established a timetable for the delivery of amended pleadings, completion of discoveries, and exchange of expert reports, with the next case management conference scheduled for January 2020.

Multiple actions arising from a complex land development dispute involving co-ownership agreements for two farm properties in Markham.

Fram alleged Romandale breached the co-ownership agreements by entering into a conditional agreement to sell its interest to Kerbel.

Kerbel later entered into a settlement agreement with Fram to delay the closing of its purchase from Romandale for decades.

The court found that Romandale did not breach the co-ownership agreements.

Furthermore, the court held that Kerbel repudiated its agreement with Romandale by entering into the settlement agreement with Fram, which fundamentally altered the timeline for closing.

All claims by Fram and Kerbel against Romandale were dismissed, and Romandale was granted a declaration that its agreement with Kerbel was at an end.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the purchase of a condominium unit, arguing that the unit was purchased by a corporation rather than the plaintiffs personally.

The court dismissed the motions on two grounds.

First, the motions were brought after an inordinate and unexplained delay, contrary to rules 2.02 and 21.02.

Second, on the merits, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claims in their personal capacity as prospective purchasers and intended occupants would fail, nor was it plain and obvious that they lacked legal capacity to bring the claims.

The defendants, Ted Slightham and Tatiana Doubovsky, sought to schedule motions under Rule 21.01 to dismiss the action against them, arguing the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim did not plead a reasonable cause of action or that the plaintiffs lacked legal capacity.

The plaintiffs, Walter Zuppinger and Min Yan, opposed, arguing the motions were untimely and would cause delay.

The court, exercising its gatekeeping function in a case-managed action, determined that granting the defendants' request to advance these motions was proportionate, efficient, and timely given the significant change in the action following a partial settlement.

The court provided detailed case management directions for the scheduling and conduct of the motions, reserving substantive assessment to the motions judge.

At a case management conference, the plaintiffs sought costs against the defendant condominium corporation for the late production of over 4,600 pages of documents.

The late production necessitated vacating a scheduled mediation and modifying the case management timetable.

The court found that the defendant's breach of the court-ordered timetable resulted in foreseeable delay and wasted costs.

The plaintiffs were awarded $1,500 in costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs brought an action for condominium deficiencies against the condominium corporation, board members, and the vendor.

Multiple third, fourth, and fifth party claims were subsequently issued, resulting in nineteen parties.

A case management conference was convened to address the scheduling of examinations for discovery and mediation.

To balance the parties' discovery rights with the need for proportionality and cost-efficiency, the court ordered time-limited 'summary' examinations of three hours per witness to take place prior to a mandatory mediation session.

If the matter does not settle at mediation, full examinations will be completed thereafter.