Breanna Needham

The appellant appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement reached in open court regarding an estate and property dispute.

He argued the settlement should be set aside due to unconscionability, mutual mistake, and misrepresentation, claiming he did not understand the terms and was tricked by his former counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the test for unconscionability and concluding there was ample evidence that the appellant, who was represented by counsel, understood and agreed to the settlement.

The applicant, Esther Benmergui, sought interim relief against York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1510 after experiencing four sewage back-ups in her newly purchased condominium unit.

The court found that the respondent failed to act with sufficient urgency to address the dangerous and uninhabitable condition of the unit, breaching its obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court ordered the respondent to pay for the applicant’s comparable alternate accommodation until repairs are completed and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed Tar Heel Investments Inc.'s claims against H.L. Staebler Company Limited, Lisa Arseneau, and Debbie Sutton regarding the alleged wrongful sale and use of a transportation insurance book of business.

The court found that Arseneau was not merely an employee but entered into a quasi-partnership with PDI, retaining ownership of her book of business.

No binding agreement was reached regarding the TRIP book of business, and Arseneau was constructively dismissed when her employment terms were unilaterally changed.

The court held that neither fiduciary nor confidentiality duties survived the constructive dismissal, and there was no conversion, conspiracy, or breach of contract by the defendants.

The action was dismissed.

The court granted the defendants leave to amend their Amended Statement of Defence, finding that the proposed amendments—alleging an oral agreement regarding a book of business and constructive dismissal—would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the legal test for amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed unless they cause injustice not compensable by costs or adjournment, are not tenable at law, or lack sufficient particulars.

The court found that the delay in seeking the amendments was explained and did not result in actual prejudice to the plaintiff, and that the amendments were based on facts already known to the parties.

The applicant, Maria Ramos, sought a declaration regarding the improper conduct of the 2021 Annual General Meeting (AGM) election of York Condominium Corporation No. 25 and an order for the corporation to pay the court-appointed inspector's fees.

The inspector, Eagle Audit, also moved for approval of its reports and payment of its fees.

The court found that the condominium's building manager had mishandled the 2021 election, making the results unreliable.

While declining to issue a declaration invalidating the 2021 AGM due to lack of practical utility, the court approved Eagle Audit's reports and ordered York Condominium Corporation No. 25 to pay Eagle Audit's full invoiced fees of $192,308.79, as well as Maria Ramos's costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $75,000 and Eagle Audit's costs of $37,151.82.

The court emphasized the importance of election integrity in condominium governance and found the corporation's resistance to the investigation and payment of fees unjustified.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement and the calculation of an earn-out provision (Target EBITDA).

The trial judge had found that the respondents constructively dismissed two key salespeople and engaged in oppressive conduct, reducing the Target EBITDA accordingly, but refused to further reduce it by a settlement amount the respondents received for a stolen book of business.

The trial judge also refused to adjust the Lower Threshold in the earn-out formula.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's contractual interpretation or his crafting of the oppression remedy, which properly validated the reasonable expectations of the parties as set out in the agreement.

A cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

On the first day of trial, the Plaintiff brought a motion seeking the production of redacted portions of an email and a non-disclosed attachment, which the Defendants claimed were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the Defendants' use of boilerplate language for Schedule "B" in their affidavits of documents did not comply with Rule 30.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it failed to provide sufficient information to challenge the privilege claim.

The court ordered the Defendants to immediately provide a detailed description of the documents, including their nature, sender, receiver, and the specific grounds for the claimed privilege, to enable the Plaintiff to properly assess and potentially challenge the privilege or argue implied waiver.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal and cross-appeal concerning damages for conversion of a "book of business" in the transportation insurance industry.

The trial judge had found conversion of one book (TRIP book) but not another (Kimberly book), and did not fully address other causes of action like breach of contract, breach of confidence, and fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conversion analysis was flawed, particularly regarding the nature of intangible property and the sufficiency of findings.

It also held that the trial judge erred by not separately addressing the other pleaded causes of action.

Consequently, the Court allowed both the appeal and cross-appeal, set aside the trial decision, and ordered a new trial on all causes of action.

The plaintiff, Aware Ads Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction against its former employee, Greg Walker, to prevent him from working for a competitor, despite his non-competition and non-solicitation clauses having expired.

The plaintiff alleged breach of confidence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case on any of its causes of action, failed to prove irreparable harm, and found the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The court also ruled that a transcript and audio recording of a conversation were inadmissible due to lack of proper authentication.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

In Phase III and IV of a trial concerning a Share Purchase Agreement, the court determined whether the 'Lower Threshold' used to calculate a deferred payment could be adjusted downwards due to the constructive dismissal of employees.

The court held that the plain wording of the agreement only permitted deductions from the Target EBITDA, not the Lower Threshold, and declined to imply a term.

On costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to repay $124,708.37 in fees advanced for a derivative action, awarded the defendants $10,000 for a production motion, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs for the main actions due to mixed success.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The action arose from tweets published by the defendant accusing the plaintiff of fraud and misappropriation of funds raised for victims of the Fort McMurray wildfires.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated substantial merit to his defamation claim and that the defendant's defences of justification, fair comment, and responsible communication did not have a real prospect of success.

The court also found that the public interest in permitting the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression.

FSD Pharma Inc. applied to validate the cancellation of Class B shares issued to its former CEO, Raza Bokhari, arguing they were issued for future consideration contrary to s. 23 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Bokhari contended the shares were valid or that the issue should be pursued under s. 130 OBCA, and that FSD was estopped from raising the issue.

The court found that shares issued for future consideration are not a nullity but their status depends on circumstances.

Applying a flexible approach, the court allowed Bokhari to retain shares proportionate to his actual employment days in 2021 (208/365ths) and permitted FSD to cancel the remainder.

The court also rejected the cause of action estoppel argument, noting the prior hearing was limited in scope.

Costs were not awarded to either party due to divided success and tactical efforts by the respondent.

The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.

The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.

The plaintiff vendor sold a commercial office tower to the defendant purchaser.

The vendor claimed $67,457.38 in post-closing adjustments related to additional rent reconciliations.

The purchaser argued these were 'rent receivables' that the vendor had to collect directly from the tenants.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court interpreted the purchase agreement and found the amounts were general adjustments subject to readjustment between the vendor and purchaser, not rent receivables.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the vendor.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion where Dynacare Gamma Laboratory Partnership successfully moved to strike Stedfasts Inc.'s Amended Statement of Claim for non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dynacare sought $9,972.52 in costs, which the court found fair and reasonable.

Stedfasts Inc. "shamelessly" requested $13,544.25 for its purported success or, alternatively, no costs, and accused Dynacare of bad faith, which the court dismissed.

The court awarded Dynacare its requested costs, emphasizing the reasonableness of their claim given Stedfasts' repeated non-compliant pleadings.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Revised Amended Statement of Claim for non-compliance with the rules of pleading.

The court found that many paragraphs contained evidence or irrelevant allegations rather than material facts.

Instead of striking the pleading without leave to amend, the court conducted a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis, striking the non-compliant paragraphs and assembling the remaining compliant paragraphs into a new Amended Statement of Claim, which the plaintiff was granted leave to deliver.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice L.C. Sheard on April 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiffs in the amount of $4,000.

The defendant was successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim in its entirety, with leave granted to the plaintiff to plead a claim for breach of contract.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $9,929.48.

The plaintiff, despite being unsuccessful, sought costs of $12,966.56, arguing it achieved substantial success by being granted leave to amend.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, finding no special circumstances to justify awarding costs against the successful party.

The court awarded the defendant its requested costs of $9,929.49, payable in any event of the cause.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff, a courier service, sued the defendant medical laboratory for various claims including negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract following the termination of their contract.

The court found the pleading to be a gross violation of the rules of pleading, as it contained evidence, was vague, and included untenable claims.

The court struck the Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim confined solely to a cause of action for breach of contract.

The applicants, former officers of the respondent corporation, brought applications for advance funding of their legal fees to defend an action alleging complex commercial fraud.

The applications were brought pursuant to the corporation's Unanimous Shareholders Agreement and section 124 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test to determine if advance funding should be denied due to bad faith.

The court dismissed the application of the former CEO, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud had been established against him in a related Mareva injunction motion.

The court granted the application of the former COO, as the evidence did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against him.