Bruce Jaeger

The plaintiff electrical contractor sued the defendant property managers for unpaid invoices relating to electrical services and energy-efficient lighting installations.

The defendants claimed set-off and brought a separate action against the plaintiff and its principal for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, alleging defective work, failure to secure energy rebates, and uncertified fixtures.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to $123,339.06 for unpaid invoices.

The defendants' set-off claims were dismissed as they failed to prove the plaintiff breached its contract or caused the alleged damages.

The defendants' separate action was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the court declined to pierce the corporate veil to hold the plaintiff's principal personally liable.

The Plaintiff moved to remove the Defendants' solicitors of record, Dickinson Wright LLP, on grounds of conflict of interest.

The Plaintiff argued that one of the firm's partners, Douglas A. Hendler, was a defendant and a crucial witness whose credibility was likely to be an issue, compromising counsel's independence.

The Defendants contended the motion was tactical and that law firms can represent themselves in fee disputes.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the conflict did not raise a serious concern given the nature of the dispute being essentially over fees, and that it would not prejudice the Plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the Defendants.

A bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge nearly nine years after being adjudged bankrupt under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Creditors and the trustee opposed an unconditional discharge, alleging the bankrupt failed to satisfactorily account for significant pre‑bankruptcy assets and had not fully disclosed financial information.

The court found the bankrupt had not adequately explained the disappearance of substantial assets including cash, RRSPs, securities, and real property, engaging s. 173(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court also found the bankrupt had remained voluntarily unemployed while living comfortably through financial support from family.

While the court concluded the bankruptcy itself arose from circumstances for which the bankrupt was not justly responsible, the failures of disclosure and conduct during bankruptcy warranted a conditional discharge requiring payment to the estate.

The court determined the appropriate costs award following interlocutory motions in a corporate dispute involving alleged diversion of corporate resources and denial of shareholder access to financial information under the Business Corporations Act.

The moving parties sought substantial costs including full indemnity reimbursement for accounting consultants retained to analyze financial records.

The court held that the moving parties were the more successful parties on the motions and were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

While the accounting services were reasonably incurred to assist in analyzing financial disclosure, they were treated similarly to legal services and not recoverable on a full indemnity basis.

The court reduced the claimed partial indemnity costs by 25% to reflect the moving parties’ lack of success on certain requested relief and ordered costs payable personally by two respondents rather than the corporation.

During a commercial trial involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy related to the declaration of a corporate dividend, the court ruled on an objection to expert testimony.

Defence counsel argued the plaintiff’s expert sought to give opinions not contained in previously served expert reports contrary to Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that an expert may explain or amplify matters latent in a report and allowed testimony on whether the dividend complied with statutory requirements under the Business Corporations Act, finding the issue sufficiently addressed in the reports.

However, the court prohibited testimony regarding what due diligence the accountant should have undertaken, as that issue was not contained in the expert reports or pleaded in the claim and would cause prejudice to the defence.