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.

The plaintiff was entirely successful in defeating the defendant's motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff sought costs of $21,200 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued the parties should bear their own costs or costs should be in the cause.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs and noted the plaintiff's time expenditure was somewhat excessive.

Costs were fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST payable forthwith.

Following the sudden death of a successful furniture manufacturer, his common-law spouse and his daughters from a previous marriage engaged in extensive litigation.

The spouse, who operated her own furniture business from the same premises as the deceased's failing company, sued the daughters, the estate, and various professional advisors for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and unlawful interference with economic relations after the deceased's company was placed into bankruptcy and her access to equipment was interrupted.

The court dismissed the conspiracy and interference claims, finding the defendants acted reasonably to manage the insolvency, but awarded the spouse $72,520 for breach of a handwritten lease and equipment agreement.

In related applications, the court upheld a change of life insurance beneficiary executed by the deceased before his death and enforced the terms of a cohabitation agreement, allowing the spouse to remain in the family home and ordering the estate to pay $84,106.25 for property maintenance and capital expenses.

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.

The plaintiffs, minority shareholders in a cement contracting business, brought a motion for interim relief in an oppression action, alleging the majority shareholder misappropriated corporate funds for personal use.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel mandatory mediation and arbitration and to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against the majority shareholder's spouse's home.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, appointing a monitor and requiring board approval for major decisions, while leaving day-to-day management with the majority shareholder.

The defendants' motions were dismissed, as the shareholders agreement did not mandate arbitration and the CPL was validly maintained to protect the corporation's constructive trust claim.

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.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the tenant $5,500 and costs.

The dispute centered on whether the landlord could require the tenant to replace its sign due to a change in the plaza's sign policy, despite a lease provision expressly approving the existing sign.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the approval lasted for the duration of the lease and found no error in the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his fraudulent conveyance action against the respondent.

The appellant sought to set aside a 1997 transfer of the matrimonial home from the judgment debtor to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the transfer was part of a comprehensive settlement following marriage breakdown, not made with intent to defeat creditors, and was supported by good consideration in good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a judgment dismissing its application under s. 23(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act for an order finding that the respondent landlord unreasonably withheld consent to a lease assignment.

The Court of Appeal found that while the application judge set out the correct test, he erred by failing to consider whether the landlord's refusal was unreasonable in fact because it was designed to achieve a collateral purpose or benefit.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.