Brian Nathan Radnoff

The plaintiff, owner of a longstanding craft beer competition, brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from holding a competing national craft beer competition.

The plaintiff alleged that a former employee, now working for the defendant association, misused confidential financial and business information obtained during his employment and during subsequent failed negotiations to purchase the plaintiff's competition.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried, presumed irreparable harm due to the nature of the confidential business information, and determined the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

A time-limited injunction was granted until September 1, 2022.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellants (defendants) successfully challenged the sanction (judgment in the action) imposed by the motion judge for contempt, due to procedural flaws.

The Court of Appeal upheld the initial costs award for the contempt finding, but set aside the costs for the sanctions hearing and the action, and ordered no costs for the appeal, acknowledging the appellants' underlying contemptuous conduct as the root cause of the proceedings.

The appellants, found in contempt for multiple failures to disclose assets and account for misappropriated investment funds, appealed the motion judge's decision to grant judgment against them for approximately $9 million as a sanction for contempt.

The Court of Appeal held that while striking a defence or barring participation can be a sanction for contempt, final judgment is not directly available as a punishment for contempt under Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court found that the motion judge erred by relying on the merits of the action to grant judgment while simultaneously barring the appellants from addressing those merits.

The judgment was set aside, and the matter remitted to a different judge for a new sentencing hearing.

The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation and breach of a non-disclosure agreement regarding derogatory internet posts allegedly authored by the defendant under a pseudonym.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the identity of the author and the credibility of the parties.

The court declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers, holding that a trial was necessary to fully appreciate the voluminous and conflicting evidence.

Additionally, the court awarded $11,860 in costs to a former defendant against whom the action had been discontinued.

The appellants, having been found in contempt of a Mareva injunction and ordered to pay approximately $9 million to the respondents, appealed the judgment.

In this endorsement, the Court of Appeal addressed two motions: the respondents' motion for security for costs of the appeal and the proceeding, and the appellants' cross-motion for a stay of a judgment debtor examination order.

The court granted the respondents' motion for security for costs in part, finding the appellants' contempt a compelling reason under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

The court dismissed the appellants' motion for a stay, determining that the examination order was not automatically stayed and that compliance would not cause irreparable harm given the appellants' existing obligations to disclose assets.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs in a dispute over an alleged real estate joint venture.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, specifically regarding guarantees and paid architectural services.

The court also determined that damages were an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favoured discharging the CPL.

The CPL was discharged, subject to a condition requiring the defendants to provide 45 days' advance notice before transferring or encumbering the subject properties.

The moving parties (Fibracast Ltd., Anaergia Inc., Anaergia Services, LLC, Benedek Companies, LLC, and Diana Benedek) brought a motion to strike out parties, claims, and pleadings from Waterspin S.r.l.'s amended defence and counterclaim.

The underlying dispute arose from a Distributor Agreement between Fibracast and Waterspin.

Waterspin's counterclaim included broad allegations of enterprise liability against related corporate entities and personal liability against a corporate officer, as well as expansive product liability, misrepresentation, and defamation claims.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that Waterspin failed to plead sufficient material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish enterprise liability.

The court also struck out the overly broad product liability claims, declaratory relief, misrepresentation claims, and defamation claims for failing to meet pleading requirements, granting leave to amend only in specific, limited circumstances.

The plaintiffs (purchasers in a real estate transaction) brought a motion to stay or dismiss a separate action commenced by the defendant real estate brokerage for unpaid commission, arguing it should have been brought as a counterclaim and was an abuse of process.

The defendant brokerage brought a cross-motion to transfer the plaintiffs' action from Toronto to Oshawa, where multiple related actions were already pending.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding it was not an abuse of process for the brokerage to commence a separate action given its dual role as plaintiff and defendant with separate counsel.

The court granted the cross-motion to transfer the Toronto action to Oshawa, noting the property, witnesses, and related proceedings were all located in the Oshawa area.

The plaintiffs sought penalties against the defendants for their continued contempt of court orders requiring them to provide an accounting of $9,000,000 in allegedly defrauded funds, information about luxury automobiles, contact information, and disclosure.

The court found that the defendants had not purged their contempt and provided implausible explanations for their non-compliance.

As a penalty, the court granted judgment against the defendants, striking their ability to defend the action, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The applicants and respondents own neighbouring cottage properties accessed by a shared laneway known as Brewers Close.

The respondents unilaterally relocated a portion of the laneway on their property and blocked the original route, preventing the applicants from traversing the full loop.

The applicants sought declarations confirming their deeded easements and an order requiring the respondents to restore the laneway.

The court interpreted the 1961 root deeds and found that valid easements were granted over the original location of the laneway.

The court ordered the respondents to restore the laneway for the applicants whose permission was never sought, and directed a trial on whether the other applicants had agreed to the relocation or were estopped from enforcing their rights.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the Developer Defendants in contempt of multiple court orders, including a Mareva injunction.

The plaintiffs had invested $9,000,000 with the defendants, who allegedly misappropriated the funds and failed to provide a court-ordered accounting, disclosure, and contact information.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found the Developer Defendants intentionally breached the orders by failing to provide an accounting, failing to disclose documents, actively thwarting a real estate closing, and failing to provide vehicle information.

The Developer Defendants were found in contempt, with a sanctions hearing to follow.

In the context of a complex fraud action, the court previously ordered the sale of a mortgaged property.

The First Mortgagees subsequently brought a motion seeking payment of three months' interest out of the sale proceeds.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was barred by issue estoppel and constituted a collateral attack on the prior sale order, as the First Mortgagees failed to attend the prior hearing or produce relevant documents.

Furthermore, the court held that the claimed interest amounted to an unenforceable penalty under the Interest Act and granted relief from forfeiture under the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs sought interim orders to compel the sale of a property and non-party document disclosure, alleging oppression and fraud by the defendants.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test for the mandatory interlocutory injunction.

It found a strong prima facie case of oppression due to the defendants' breach of shareholder agreements, diversion of funds, and lack of credibility, evidenced by their non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court approved the plaintiffs' proposed sale of the property for $12 million over the defendants' $15 million offer, citing the plaintiffs' offer's certainty and the defendants' unreliability.

The court also granted the non-party production order.

The applicants, Dawn and Scott McIntosh, sought to schedule a motion in Toronto to stay an action (the "2020 Oshawa Action") brought by HomeLife Superior Realty Inc. in Oshawa.

McIntosh argued the Oshawa action should have been a counterclaim in the existing Toronto action and sought to dismiss it as frivolous or an abuse of process.

The court declined to schedule the motion in Toronto, emphasizing Rule 37.03(1) which presumptively requires motions to be heard in the region where the affected proceeding was commenced.

The court found no reason to deviate from this rule, noting the Oshawa action was not improperly brought, there was a history of litigation in Oshawa related to the real estate transaction, and McIntosh was already involved in other Oshawa proceedings.

The plaintiffs sued two law firms and their lawyers for professional negligence related to a commercial asset sale and subsequent arbitration.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the claims.

The court dismissed both motions, finding genuine issues requiring a trial against the FLPC Defendants and deeming partial summary judgment inadvisable for the SWL Defendants due to the risk of inconsistent findings and the central role of credibility issues.

In an application seeking a declaration that certain promissory notes were forged, the respondents brought a motion under Rule 30.04(2) to compel the applicants to produce the original promissory notes for inspection.

The applicants argued they did not possess the originals and that the motion was an abuse of process.

The Master granted the motion, ordering both parties to produce any original promissory notes in their possession or provide sworn evidence explaining their whereabouts, emphasizing the importance of verifying pivotal documents.

The appellant, Stoney Creek Centre Inc., appealed a judgment requiring it to pay the $3 million face amount of a mortgage, plus interest, to discharge it, rather than the approximately $2.7 million actually advanced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the mortgage financing agreement.

The court held that the parties had expressly agreed that the borrower would bear the lender's financing costs, making the full face value of the mortgage payable.

The defendant was successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations as an abuse of process.

The defendant sought costs of $21,804.92 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs of $17,750 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the plaintiff's late abandonment of several causes of action unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding, but substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The plaintiff, Crown Crest Financial Corp., sued the defendant, a licensed paralegal, alleging he unlawfully obtained confidential business records and misused the information to recruit 14 claimants to sue Crown Crest in Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff advanced claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claims under Rule 21.01.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims were not legally viable on public policy grounds, as they would interfere with the loyalty relationship between a litigant and their legal representative.

The court also found the claims were an abuse of process because they relied on privileged communications.

The claims were struck, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend to plead privacy torts.

The applicants sought to remove land and PPSA registrations placed by the respondents on the basis of two promissory notes.

The court determined a preliminary issue of whether the promissory notes were enforceable on their face against the applicant corporations.

The court found that because the notes did not name the corporations, despite the individual signatory indicating he had authority to bind a corporation, the notes were only enforceable against the individual personally.

Consequently, the registrations against the corporate applicants were ordered removed.