Charles Michael Gibson

Claridge applied for a vesting order for vacant land held by Desloges, arguing it was the beneficial owner under an express or resulting trust.

Desloges opposed and brought a cross-application for reimbursement of property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs incurred since 1991.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the express trust failed because a condition precedent requiring Planning Act approval was not met, a resulting trust arose in favour of Claridge.

The court granted the vesting order, finding the claim was not statute-barred or barred by laches.

Desloges's cross-application was partially granted, awarding $46,304 for maintenance costs, but claims for insurance and taxes were dismissed as unproven.

This decision addresses the terms of a court-ordered buy-sell process between two dental practice shareholders following a deadlock.

The court determined that it would not fix the value of the dental practice for the buy-sell notice and rejected the applicant's request for a price reduction based on the respondent's role as the working dentist.

The court found that the parties' negotiated draft shareholders' agreement, which included differential non-competition provisions, adequately protected the applicant's interests.

The final buy-sell notice was approved with only the purchase prices to be inserted by each party.

This case involved an application by two dentists seeking a one-third interest in a dental corporation, damages, and remedies for alleged partnership, breach of agreement, oppression, and unjust enrichment against a third dentist and her professional corporation.

The court found no partnership existed, the agreement for the applicant to acquire shares was conditional and unfulfilled by the applicant, and there was no oppressive conduct or unjust enrichment by the respondent.

However, the court did find the dental corporation to be in a deadlock between the two remaining shareholders and ordered a buy-sell arrangement as a just and equitable remedy under the Business Corporations Act, with the court retaining jurisdiction to determine specific terms if the parties cannot agree.

The applicant, a judgment creditor owed over $1.5 million by the respondent dentist, brought an application alleging that the respondent and others conspired to fraudulently convey his interest in several dental practices to a third-party corporation.

The applicant sought damages and a declaration that the sale was a conspiracy by unlawful means.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the sale was initiated by an arm's-length purchaser prior to the judgment, the consideration was consistent with standard industry practices, and there was no intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud the applicant.

The representative plaintiffs, I.P. and M.P., brought a motion for court approval to discontinue a proposed class action against the Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada and other related entities, without costs and without notice to putative class members.

The proposed class action, initiated in 2015, alleged sexual abuse of children at the Holy Cross Mission.

The plaintiffs and 27 other putative class members had individually settled their claims outside of the class proceeding framework.

The court granted leave to discontinue the action but required the Merchant Law Group, as putative class counsel, to provide notice of the discontinuance to all putative class members, including those who had settled, through website posting, newspaper publication, and direct delivery of the reasons for decision.

The court emphasized the need for transparency and protection of vulnerable class members, noting that the individual settlements and counsel fees were not disclosed for court approval.

The plaintiff, a distributor of lighting retrofit kits, sued the defendant local distribution company for over $20 million in damages after its business failed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently delayed and suspended approvals for customer rebates under a provincial energy conservation program, raising unfounded safety concerns.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, as the rebate program was exclusively for the benefit of customers.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendant's safety concerns were legitimate, the processing times were not unreasonable, and the plaintiff's financial collapse was caused by internal disputes, loss of inventory, and withdrawal of bank financing rather than the defendant's actions.

Claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and misfeasance in public office were also dismissed.

The appellant, Liviu Calin, appealed findings of liability for assault, battery, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, and the quantum of damages awarded to his twin daughters, Ilinca and Ana Calin.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for intentional infliction of mental distress and the quantum of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's factual findings, credibility assessments, and damages award, and affirming the trial judge's causation analysis regarding psychiatric conditions.

Following a successful motion for a disclosure order against the defendants in the context of a judgment debtor examination, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants' conduct, including refusing to answer relevant questions, delivering unhelpful answers on the eve of the hearing, and frustrating the plaintiff's attempts to execute its judgment, justified an elevated costs award.

The plaintiff was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $13,954.

The plaintiff, 6071376 Canada Inc., sought an order to compel the defendants, 3966305 Canada Inc. and Mahmood Khedmatgozar, to disclose records to assist in the execution of a $1.19 million judgment.

The defendants had failed to provide adequate answers to undertakings and advisements from a previous judgment debtor examination.

The court granted broad disclosure orders, compelling the defendants to answer all questions, including those previously refused or taken under advisement, and to produce extensive financial records dating back to 2012, emphasizing the debtor's obligation for full and frank disclosure.

A request for immediate transfer of funds held in trust was denied due to lack of evidence.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for breach of an oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a commercial development project.

The trial judge found that the individual appellant sold the project without disclosing it to the investors, misappropriated the proceeds, and lied for years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the existence of the oral contract, credibility, piercing the corporate veil to find personal liability, and the award of punitive damages.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages and punitive damages due to the defendants' reprehensible conduct, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court determined the proper calculation of pre-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, finding the plaintiff was entitled to a single rate rather than a quarter-by-quarter calculation.

With the total judgment calculated at $1,196,682, the plaintiff beat the defendants' Rule 49 settlement offers.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $300,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a successful civil action for abuse against their father, Liviu Calin, plaintiffs Ana and Ilinca Calin sought costs of over $395,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors, found the requested costs disproportionately high given the significant disparity between the $10.15 million claimed and the $105,000 awarded.

While acknowledging the plaintiffs' success and the principles of the Victims' Bill of Rights, the court determined that the plaintiffs' pursuit of unrealistic claims, particularly for income loss and incidents in Romania, unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 in costs, reduced by a prior $17,000 order against them, resulting in a net payment of $83,000 from the defendant.

The plaintiff, 6071376 Canada Inc., invested 40% of the closing funds for a commercial property (the "Hull Project") in exchange for 40% of its net income and net value upon sale.

Title was held by defendant 3966305 Canada Inc., whose sole director and shareholder was defendant Mahmood Khedmatgozar.

Mahmood sold the property without the plaintiff's knowledge, using the proceeds to purchase another property, and repeatedly lied to the plaintiff about the project's status for over six years.

The court found that the defendants owed fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and that Mahmood was personally liable due to piercing the corporate veil, having used 3966305 Canada Inc. as his alter ego to misappropriate funds.

The plaintiff was awarded 40% of the Hull Project's net sale proceeds and net rental profits, plus prejudgment interest.

The defendants' limitation defence was rejected.

Mahmood was ordered to pay $200,000 in punitive damages for his outrageous and reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiffs, twin sisters, brought an action against their father for damages arising from alleged physical, psychological, and emotional abuse during their childhood and adolescence.

The court found that the father had committed battery, assault, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty by subjecting the plaintiffs to physical violence and threats that exceeded reasonable parental discipline.

However, the court dismissed the claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and wrongful imprisonment, finding insufficient evidence that the father's conduct caused the plaintiffs' psychiatric disorders or that he completely isolated them.

The court awarded general damages of $50,000 to one plaintiff and $35,000 to the other, along with $10,000 each in punitive damages, but dismissed claims for loss of income and competitive advantage.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The responding parties had attempted to resile from Minutes of Settlement and made unproven allegations of fraud and breach of trust against the moving party.

The court found that the responding parties' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and that their unproven allegations of dishonesty warranted an exception to the usual costs rules.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the moving party, excluding the costs of preparing the costs submissions.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage and its agent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by all parties at a pre-trial conference.

The defendant vendors opposed the motion, arguing they did not understand the English proceedings or the settlement document due to a language barrier, and did not intend to release their counterclaim.

The court rejected the language barrier argument, noting the defendants had retained unilingual English professionals for the underlying transaction, conducted prior pleadings in English, and were represented by bilingual counsel at the pre-trial conference.

The court found a clear meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the settlement and granted summary judgment enforcing the agreement.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to declare a mortgage registered by the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) against her matrimonial home a nullity, alleging her signature was forged by her husband.

RBC brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking an equitable charge by subrogation, as the funds advanced under the disputed mortgage were used to pay off the plaintiff's prior valid mortgages with TD Bank.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the forgery allegation required a trial.

However, the court granted RBC's motion in part, awarding an equitable charge of $370,804 for the payoff of one TD mortgage to prevent the plaintiff's unjust enrichment.

The court also granted judgment against the plaintiff for $350,429 for the payoff of a second TD liability, but directed a trial to determine if that prior mortgage had been discharged in error before granting a second equitable charge.

The plaintiff, The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa (RCECO), sued the defendant insurer, l’Assurance mutuelle de l’inter-ouest (Mutuelle), for confirmation of insurance coverage for sexual abuse claims.

Initially, RCECO sought coverage for eight pre-1976 claims, which were later found to be uncovered as Mutuelle was not licensed for public liability insurance before that period.

RCECO subsequently amended its claim to include four additional claims, three of which Mutuelle recognized.

Mutuelle brought a motion for summary judgment, but the parties settled, resulting in nine claims being dismissed and three recognized.

The sole remaining issue was costs.

Mutuelle sought partial indemnity costs, arguing greater success, while RCECO sought substantial indemnity costs, citing Mutuelle's unreasonable conduct in failing to respond to coverage inquiries.

The court acknowledged Mutuelle's greater success in dismissing claims but also noted its unreasonable conduct.

Ultimately, the court declined to award costs to either party, finding RCECO's claimed costs excessive for a settled summary judgment motion.

The Catholic entities appealed an order allowing residential school survivors to archive their Independent Assessment Process (IAP) documents with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation without the consent of alleged perpetrators.

Canada cross-appealed, arguing the IAP documents were government records subject to federal archiving and privacy legislation and could not be destroyed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that only claimants have the right to decide whether to archive their documents.

The Court further held that the IAP documents are not government records because they are not under government control, and upheld the supervising judge's order to destroy the documents after a 15-year retention period to protect the claimants' privacy and confidentiality.

The defendant, Hydro One, brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff, which was in receivership.

The court applied the three-step test under Rule 56(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario but successfully established that it was impecunious and unable to raise funds to post security.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the defendant's alleged failure to process energy conservation program applications was not devoid of merit.

Concluding that an order for security for costs would unjustly end the litigation, the court dismissed the motion.