Brian Illion

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike paragraphs 40 and 59 of the defendants’ statement of defence and counterclaim, arguing they pleaded privileged settlement discussions or evidence.

The defendants had offered to reverse an asset purchase "with prejudice" as a mitigation argument.

The court found that despite being marked "with prejudice," the offer was a privileged settlement proposal intended to end the litigation.

The motion to strike was granted, with leave to amend, allowing the defendants to plead failure to mitigate without reference to the specific offer.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a co-ownership agreement.

The respondents opposed, arguing the applicant was no longer a party to the agreement due to a prior corporate dissolution and purported divestiture of its interest, and that the claim was statute-barred or an abuse of process.

The court granted the application, applying the competence-competence principle to hold that the arbitrator should first rule on their own jurisdiction, as there was an arguable case that the applicant remained a party and the application itself was brought within the applicable limitation period.

This appeal concerned the application of well-established principles governing motions to set aside default judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision not to set aside the default judgment, finding no error in the assessment that there was no air of reality to the proposed defences.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Appeal from a summary judgment enforcing personal guarantees against the appellants in connection with an equipment lease agreement.

The appellants, who signed personal guarantees relating to Altavision Plus Inc.'s obligations under a 2009 equipment lease with Maxium Financial Services Inc., challenged the motion judge's decision on four grounds: (1) misinterpretation of the governing law clause; (2) failure to recognize a defence based on Maxium's failure to claim insurance coverage; (3) loss of standing due to assignment of receivables to Sun Life; and (4) unreasonableness of the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the summary judgment.

The applicants, Saniia Agisheva and Andrii Grynyshyn (Grynyshyn shareholders), sought leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of Sunbex Corporation against the respondents, Dmitri Petrov, Natalia Lobanova, Alex Miadelets, Ventus Consulting Inc., and Midstream Infrastructure Protection Technologies Inc. (Petrov shareholders), alleging misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The respondents brought a cross-application for leave to bring a derivative action against the Grynyshyn shareholders for alleged warranty claims and misappropriation of funds.

The court granted the Grynyshyn shareholders' application, finding they met the four-part test for leave to commence a derivative action, demonstrating good faith and an arguable case in the corporation's interest.

The respondents' cross-application was dismissed, as their claims were found to be de minimis or more akin to a personal contractual dispute, and not in the best interests of the corporation.

The plaintiffs, licensed real estate agents, sought commissions from the defendant Fufa Limited for the sale of a multi-residential property.

They claimed entitlement based on alleged verbal agreements, or alternatively, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The court found no valid verbal agreement for commission, noting the absence of essential terms and the existence of an exclusive written listing agreement with another brokerage (ReMax) that had expired.

The plaintiffs also failed to establish they were the "effective cause" of the sale due to intervening events and significant differences in the final sale terms.

Claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were dismissed as they could not circumvent the requirements of the Real Estate Business Brokers Act and there was insufficient evidence to quantify damages for services rendered.

The applicants sought an urgent interlocutory injunction or stay to prohibit an arbitrator from hearing further proceedings related to HST issues, pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal the arbitrator's award.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The court emphasized deference to the arbitrator's scheduling decisions and the limited scope for judicial intervention in arbitration matters, particularly when a party attempts to re-litigate issues or change positions taken during the arbitration.

Following an earlier order recognizing two Singapore judgments in Ontario with costs to the applicant, the court considered cost submissions from the parties.

The court found the submissions unsatisfactory because they did not provide sufficient detail to assess the reasonableness of the time spent on specific tasks.

The applicant was directed to file a revised cost outline itemizing time spent on each task and on court attendances.

The court also required removal of time related to a prior motion where costs had already been ordered and demanded further particulars for certain disbursements.

The applicant sought to register and enforce two Singapore judgments against the respondent Hopaco, and moved for summary judgment against the respondent DEAR for a declaration of trust over shares.

DEAR brought cross-motions to dismiss the claim as statute-barred, stay it for forum non conveniens, or obtain security for costs.

The court allowed the registration of the foreign judgments against Hopaco.

However, the court dismissed both summary judgment motions regarding DEAR, finding that whether the foreign judgment was an in rem judgment binding on DEAR required a full factual record.

The court also held the action was not statute-barred, declined to stay the action, and ordered the applicant to post security for costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a joint and several continuing guarantee securing demand promissory notes.

The defendant argued the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that liability should be limited to half the indebtedness because there were two guarantors.

The court held that the limitation period for enforcing a continuing guarantee begins only after a clear and formal demand on the guarantor, which occurred in 2010, making the action timely.

The court further held that a joint and several guarantee permits recovery of the entire indebtedness from any guarantor.

Summary judgment was granted for the full amount of the debt with interest and costs.