Chad Kopach

Following judgment in a civil action, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff argued entitlement to enhanced costs on the basis that he had beaten his offer to settle, while the defendant disputed that claim and argued the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The court accepted that the plaintiff had not beaten the offer to settle and found that the proceeding should properly have been brought in Small Claims Court, justifying the exercise of discretion under Rule 57.05 to decline awarding costs to the plaintiff.

However, the court also declined to award costs to the defendant due to misconduct by its agent.

As a result, no costs were awarded to either party.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of funds withdrawn from his bank account for an alleged car loan arranged through a dealership acting as the bank’s agent.

The bank asserted that a valid loan agreement existed and relied on signed loan documentation and the plaintiff’s payment history.

The court held that the bank failed to establish that acceptance of the loan application was communicated to the borrower, a required element for contract formation.

Because the bank did not prove that a binding loan agreement existed, it had no legal right to withdraw the funds.

Summary judgment was granted requiring repayment of the withdrawn amount with interest, while additional damage claims were dismissed for lack of evidence.

In supplemental reasons following an earlier declaration that a shareholders’ agreement was valid and binding, the court determined the price for a compulsory buyout of a 20% share interest in two corporations holding a commercial property.

The principal issue was whether the minority shareholder’s entitlement should be reduced by the outstanding mortgage and expenses advanced by the majority shareholder after the business venture failed.

Applying contractual interpretation principles and reading the indemnity clause in light of the agreement as a whole, the court held the shares were allocated free and clear of encumbrances and that the majority shareholder had assumed responsibility for the property-related liabilities.

The buyout was therefore fixed at 20% of the agreed $3.2 million property value, or $640,000, with costs to the successful party.

The plaintiff dentist alleged that the defendants supplied defective dental equipment causing business losses, property damage from leaking equipment, and delays in opening a second clinic.

On competing motions relating to documentary production and discovery procedures, the court applied the relevance standard under Rule 30.02 and the proportionality principle under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered various categories of document production from both sides, including financial records, repair invoices, equipment images, and documents relevant to alleged lost profits and misrepresentation.

The court also permitted the plaintiff to examine an individual defendant personally at discovery due to allegations that he was the directing mind of the corporate defendant and personally involved in the representations at issue.

A discovery plan was ordered to move the litigation forward.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought a motion for directions concerning responsibility for an appeal from an order dismissing a civil action previously commenced by the bankrupt.

The trustee had concluded that prosecuting the underlying actions would likely result in a net liability to the estate and the parties agreed the actions should be returned to the bankrupt pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The dispute concerned whether the trustee or the bankrupt should pursue the appeal of the dismissed action after the trustee conveyed its interest back to the bankrupt.

The court held that the trustee had taken reasonable steps to preserve the action prior to dismissal and had not failed in its duties.

Once the action was returned to the bankrupt, responsibility for prosecuting the appeal fell to the bankrupt, who was also ordered to reimburse the trustee’s reasonable legal fees incurred in filing a placeholder appeal.

Following a prior trial determining that the respondent was bound by a shareholders’ agreement granting the moving party a 20% share interest in two corporations, the parties brought a motion seeking reconsideration and variation of portions of the earlier judgment.

The dispute concerned a buyout order and valuation process imposed under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act that had not been argued at trial.

The court held that it was inappropriate to impose such relief when the issue had effectively been removed from the matters to be determined at trial.

The court therefore set aside the earlier buyout and valuation provisions, while permitting the moving party to pursue such remedies through further pleadings and evidence within the existing proceeding.

Additional relief relating to an accounting order was also struck, and no costs were awarded.

Following the dismissal of two civil actions against a bank, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had commenced proceedings seeking damages and banking records relating to a decades‑old workers’ compensation payment.

The defendant bank had successfully moved to dismiss the actions for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the defendant was the successful party and entitled to costs, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the bank had forced the litigation by failing to advise them of alternative procedural mechanisms to obtain records.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and reduced for proportionality due to overlap between the two proceedings.

A dispute arose over a commercial real estate venture involving a golf driving range property where the defendant broker asserted a contractual 20% ownership interest pursuant to a shareholders’ preliminary agreement.

The plaintiffs alleged that the signature on the agreement was forged and sought a declaration that the broker had no interest in the corporations or property.

After considering expert handwriting evidence, documentary records, and credibility findings, the court concluded that the signature was genuine and that the agreement was valid and binding.

The court further found that the plaintiffs’ conduct in denying the agreement and withholding financial information was oppressive under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Remedies included declarations confirming the respondent’s 20% interest, registration of that interest on title, corporate share issuance, an accounting of business operations, and an order requiring the purchase of the respondent’s interest at fair market value.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action to invalidate a home renovations contract and associated loan agreement.

She alleged her signatures on the contract were forged.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence of forgery to counter the respondent's contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over it in the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons or conclusion, noting that the appellant accepted all findings of fact and the motion judge considered all relevant factors in the governing test.