Chloe A. Snider

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application to set aside an arbitral award arising from a post-closing earnout dispute in an international commercial arbitration.

It argued that the application judge improperly assessed alleged breaches of natural justice on a reduced procedural fairness standard because the arbitrator was an accountant rather than a legally trained adjudicator.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge correctly applied the governing principles, made factual findings open on the record, and repeatedly grounded the analysis in the parties' agreed arbitral process.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded all-inclusive partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, Guy Gissin, as Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of Israeli court judgments against the respondents for over 71 million NIS.

The respondents opposed, arguing recognition would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of process, including claims of double recovery and prior Canadian decisions on related facts.

The court found the Israeli judgments final, for a definite sum, and from a court of competent jurisdiction, and held that none of the narrow defences to enforcement (fraud, denial of natural justice, or public policy) applied.

The court rejected the double recovery argument, finding no evidence of over-recovery, and held that prior Canadian proceedings did not address or preclude the Israeli claims.

The application for recognition and enforcement was granted.

The court denied the respondents' motion for leave under Rule 39 to deliver an expert report on Israeli law in a recognition and enforcement application.

The decision reviews the procedural history, the applicable test for leave under Rule 39.02(2), and finds that the respondents failed to satisfy any of the criteria for leave.

The court held that the expert report was not relevant, did not respond to a matter raised on cross-examination, would cause non-compensable prejudice, and was not adequately explained as to its late delivery.

The application was adjourned to March 27, 2025, and directions were given for the delivery of amended factums.

The respondents brought a motion to stay an application by the applicant to set aside an arbitral award.

The core dispute revolved around whether a forum selection clause in an asset purchase agreement, which designated New York courts, applied to the application to set aside the award, or if Ontario's International Commercial Arbitration Act and the Model Law governed due to the arbitration's "place" being Toronto.

The court found that the arbitration procedure was subject to an exception in the forum selection clause and that Toronto was the agreed or deemed "place" of arbitration.

Consequently, Ontario law and jurisdiction applied for setting aside the award.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase the respondents' shares in a corporation involved in the Thai medical cannabis industry.

The court found that the email correspondence between the parties constituted an agreement in principle, but not a binding contract, as essential terms regarding due diligence and disclosure remained unresolved.

However, the court found that a subsequent rights offering proposed by the respondents, which would have significantly diluted the applicant's minority shareholding at a below-market price, was oppressive.

The application for specific performance was dismissed, but the rights offering was permanently enjoined.

The plaintiff, a minor student at a private school, sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the school to re-register him for the upcoming academic year.

The student's parents had failed to pay tuition arrears by the re-registration deadline, resulting in the school filling his spot.

After paying the arrears late, the parents argued the school breached its contract and an alleged oral agreement by refusing re-registration.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of breach of contract or that the student would suffer irreparable harm if forced to attend a different school pending trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to add claims against the corporate directors for unpaid wages under the OBCA and CBCA.

One of the directors opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike the existing ESA claims, arguing the claims were premature because the corporate employer had not yet been sued to judgment and execution returned unsatisfied.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend, finding the claims were not clearly untenable at law and could be tried together with the corporate claims.

The court dismissed the director's cross-motion to strike, finding it was brought too late and was an improper disguised summary judgment motion.

Following a decision permanently staying the plaintiffs' second action for abuse of process, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, finding that the defendants' Rule 49 offer was not beaten and the plaintiffs' fraud claim was never adjudicated.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amounts by 25% to account for issues that were deferred to a potential future motion.

Costs were fixed at $34,608 for the main group of defendants and $13,722 for Dr. Kajdehi.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action in 2015 against his former employer, which was stayed when the employer declared bankruptcy.

In 2019, the plaintiff commenced a second action against the bankrupt employer and several new defendants, alleging oppression, common employer, and improper transfer of assets.

The newly added defendants moved to strike or stay the second action.

The court permanently stayed the second action as an abuse of process, finding that it improperly circumvented the comprehensive regime of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for challenging asset transfers, as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the addition of parties to an existing action.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Belobaba dated October 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties, the plaintiffs, fixed in the amount of $35,000.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff alleged a fraudulent scheme involving breach of contract, conspiracy, and other torts by its former employee and various corporate and individual defendants in China and Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts to support personal liability against the individual defendants (except the former employee) separate from their roles as corporate directors or officers.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with the court's directives.

The defendants brought a motion to amend the class definition in a certified data breach class action.

They sought to narrow the class to persons who had active leases or loans with Nissan during a specific period, based on evidence that the stolen data sample only contained information from that timeframe.

They also sought to exclude corporate customers.

The court granted the motion to amend the timeframe, finding it supported by the evidence, but declined to exclude corporate customers at this stage, holding that the issue of whether corporations can claim intrusion upon seclusion should be determined as a separate question of law.

Following a partially successful certification motion in a privacy breach class action, the plaintiffs sought costs of $532,162.17.

The court found the requested amount excessive and unreasonable due to over-litigating, over-staffing, and over-docketing.

Noting the plaintiffs' mixed success and last-minute changes to their case that prejudiced the defendants, the court reduced a reasonable starting point of $160,000 by half, awarding the plaintiffs $80,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Nissan following a data breach where an unknown employee accessed and stole the personal information of thousands of customers, demanding a ransom.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court certified common issues relating to vicarious liability for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, aggregate damages, and punitive damages, while narrowing the proposed class definition.

The appellant purchased a painting purportedly by renowned Anishinaabe artist Norval Morrisseau for $20,000, accompanied by a provenance statement.

After the Art Gallery of Ontario indicated the painting was likely a fake, the appellant sued for return of the purchase price, lost investment returns, and punitive damages.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the authenticity of the painting remained uncertain.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by rejecting expert evidence based on his own personal research not in evidence, and by misapprehending the contract's terms regarding the provenance statement.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and the Sale of Goods Act, plus punitive damages.

The applicants sought to enforce a Chinese arbitral award of approximately $10 million CAD against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing she did not receive proper notice of the arbitration and that the arbitration was not 'international' under the Model Law.

The court found that the respondent was properly served in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules and that the arbitration was international because the respondent habitually resided in Canada when the arbitration agreement was made.

The application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for damages arising from a municipal tendering process and termination of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The trial judge found that while the respondent Town breached its tendering process by accepting a non-compliant bid, the appellants failed to demonstrate they would have been awarded the contract.

The appellants did not meet their burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the contract would have been awarded to them, as the trial judge found it more probable the Town would have re-tendered.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding it was open to the Town to reject all bids and re-tender with different specifications.

The agreement of purchase and sale was also properly terminated in good faith for legitimate business reasons.

This costs endorsement follows a summary judgment decision where HSBC Bank Canada (the Bank) successfully dismissed Kari Holdings Inc.'s (Kari) action.

The Bank sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, arguing for substantial indemnity post-settlement offer.

Kari opposed, citing novel legal issues and undue hardship to its shareholders, or proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court found the Bank was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting Kari's arguments regarding novelty and shareholder hardship.

The court awarded the Bank $100,000, inclusive, payable within 30 days, considering the complexity, resources expended, and the seriousness of the allegations.