Cheryl G. McLuckie

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for oppression.

The plaintiffs, former minority shareholders, alleged that the defendants misappropriated corporate assets and sold shares below true value.

The court struck the claims against the Murison Family Trust with leave to amend, as a trust is not a legal entity.

The claims against 2123388 Ontario Inc. and Exia Biomedical Inc. were struck without leave to amend, as 212 lacked the capacity to oppress and the claims against Exia belonged to the corporation and required a derivative action.

The claim against Obotics Inc. was struck with leave to amend, as no material facts of wrongful conduct were pleaded.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the plaintiffs' action against the moving defendants, the issue of costs for four summary judgment motions was returned to the motion judge.

The moving defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiffs alleged fraud and failed to accept a walk-away offer.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no fraud was pleaded and the communication was not a formal offer to settle.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and noting duplication of effort among multiple defence counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at a total of $235,000.

Following summary judgment motions brought by nine defendants, which were largely dismissed but resulted in the narrowing of the plaintiffs' claims, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought $182,725 on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendants sought $289,249.

The court found that the plaintiffs were generally successful as the actions were not dismissed, but granted the defendants a 25% credit ($72,000) for their partial success in narrowing the issues.

The plaintiffs were awarded net costs of $100,000.

The plaintiff real estate broker brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner for an unpaid leasing commission.

The owner cross-moved to dismiss the claim, arguing its property manager lacked actual authority to enter into the listing agreement on its behalf.

The court found that the property management agreement granted the manager actual authority to arrange for advertising and promotion, which included engaging a broker.

The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to the commission because a valid offer to lease was received during the listing period and the owner's agent breached the agreement by failing to refer the prospective tenant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted and the defendant's cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for specific performance of a handwritten agreement of purchase and sale for a property.

The trial judge had found that the parties were not ad idem and declined to enforce the agreement, despite finding it contained all essential terms and was not unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the executed written agreement was a clear manifestation of mutual assent and that the vendor's uncommunicated reservations did not support a defence of mistake.

Specific performance was ordered.