Christopher D. Bredt

A surviving spouse sought an advance equalization payment of $4.5 million from the estate of her deceased husband under the Family Law Act or, alternatively, partial summary judgment.

The motion was opposed by several defendants asserting potential claims against the estate and challenging their standing and the appropriateness of the advance.

The court held that the equalization entitlement between spouses is personal under the Family Law Act and that the defendants were neither proven creditors nor beneficiaries.

Applying the three-part test for advance equalization payments from Laamanen v. Laamanen, the court found a reasonable need for litigation funding, little doubt of entitlement to at least the requested amount, and that granting the advance was just in the circumstances.

Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited (P&H) and Thirdcoast Limited filed cross-applications before the Ontario Securities Commission regarding P&H's take-over bid for Thirdcoast.

P&H sought to cease trade Thirdcoast's shareholder rights plan (poison pill), while Thirdcoast sought to cease trade shares subject to lock-up agreements entered into by P&H, alleging the bid was coercive and offered collateral benefits.

The Commission found the bid was not coercive and no prohibited collateral understanding existed.

The Commission granted P&H's application, permanently cease trading the rights plan, as it had served its purpose and no competing bid had emerged, and dismissed Thirdcoast's application.

Following earlier rulings on a derivative leave motion in estate litigation, the court addressed outstanding procedural directions and the issue of costs for five related motions.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $144,000 for work connected primarily to the derivative issues.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court held that the requested amount far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties for a one‑day motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants jointly and severally at $55,000 inclusive of taxes and interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing its application to review an IIROC Hearing Panel's refusal to stay proceedings.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction and could not provide procedural fairness because it lacked the power to compel non-member witnesses, which would prevent the applicant from making full answer and defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the stay motion was premature, as any prejudice regarding missing evidence is best assessed during the hearing on the merits.

The respondent commenced an action alleging the appellants fraudulently obtained and illegally transmitted its satellite programming to apartment tenants.

The appellants moved to stay the action under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the residential subscriber agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the stay, finding the appellants could not invoke the arbitration clause without acknowledging they were parties to it.

The Court also agreed that a partial stay under s. 7(5) was inappropriate as it would cause a multiplicity of proceedings, given that only a few of the 23 defendants were potentially bound by the agreement.

Deutsche Bank Securities Limited applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for a hearing and review of a decision by an IIROC Hearing Panel that dismissed its motion to stay a Notice of Hearing.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction because it could not compel evidence from non-members, thereby denying the applicant the right to make full answer and defence.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the IIROC Hearing Panel correctly applied the law by reserving the stay decision until the extent of any prejudice could be assessed at a hearing on the merits.

The Commission also held that the application was premature.

The moving party, Lehman Brothers International (Europe), sought to stay an order refusing to permanently stay the Ontario action pending its motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The underlying dispute involved the beneficial ownership of publicly traded securities held under brokerage contracts containing an exclusive jurisdiction clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the moving party failed to show a serious issue to be adjudicated, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the responding parties' undertakings and the ongoing concurrent litigation in New York.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to stay the respondents' action based on an exclusive forum selection clause in their agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the clause applied, the respondents had shown 'strong cause' not to enforce it.

The court noted the appellant's delay in raising the jurisdictional issue, its inconsistent positions, and the risk of inconsistent verdicts between Canada and the United States.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration interpreting provisions of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 regarding the registration status of a broker or salesperson no longer employed by a brokerage.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge that there was no live dispute or lis between the parties, as the specific broker's registration had been revoked.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing two Russian arbitral awards against it.

The application judge had refused to consider the appellant's evidence of alleged death threats, which the appellant claimed prevented its participation in the arbitration, on the basis of issue estoppel from a prior proceeding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that issue estoppel did not apply and that the application judge erred by failing to exercise residual discretion to prevent injustice.

The enforcement application was remitted for a fresh determination.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel the responding parties to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The motion judge had found no need for the order because the moving parties' lawyers already had access to the documents through a related proceeding involving the same responding parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motion judge's decision was a practical solution to a unique factual matrix and did not raise matters of general or public importance.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel the defendant to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The plaintiff argued the order conflicted with case law and misapprehended the nature of Anton Piller orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge's decision was discretionary, turned on the specific facts of the case, and did not involve matters of general public importance.

The court noted the plaintiff already had access to the documents in question and was arguably in a better position to list them.

The respondent on appeal brought a motion for security for costs of the appeal.

The moving party had successfully applied to enforce Russian arbitration awards against the appellant in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that a respondent on appeal cannot rely on Rule 61.06(1)(b) to obtain security for costs against a defendant/appellant, as no party should have to give security simply to defend itself.

Furthermore, the moving party could not use the 'other good reason' provision in Rule 61.06(1)(c) to bypass this restriction.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) concerning the registration of a real estate broker and brokerage.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to make the necessary threshold determinations under s. 10(1)(a) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 before ordering remedies.

Furthermore, the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the registration of the respondent as a salesperson, which was not an issue before it.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a rehearing.

The Court also provided guidance for the rehearing, noting that the civil standard of proof is a balance of probabilities and that interfering with trust accounts is inherently wrongful.

Following an appeal in which the respondents were largely successful, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The court ordered the appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Crown appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing the Ministry of Transportation's award of a highway construction contract to the lowest bidder.

The second-lowest bidder had argued the winning bid was non-compliant because it declared no imported steel, despite design drawings specifying rolled steel beams unavailable in Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Ministry's investigation and subsequent conclusion that the winning bid was compliant—based on the bidder's intention to use Canadian welded steel that met structural standards—was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting specific performance of a share purchase agreement.

The appellant argued the letter agreement lacked certainty regarding the mortgage amount, interest payments, and reporting requirements, amounting only to an agreement to agree.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the agreement's terms were clear and capable of enforcement when read in the context of the surrounding factual matrix.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Bot Construction Limited, sought judicial review of the Ministry of Transportation's decision to award a road construction contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued that the winning bid was non-compliant because it failed to declare imported steel, despite the project specifications requiring rolled steel beams that are unavailable in Canada.

The Divisional Court found that the Ministry's decision that the bid was compliant was unreasonable, as the bid could not meet the mandatory specifications using only Canadian steel.

The Court held that the Ministry breached its duty of fairness by privately accepting the winning bidder's proposal to substitute welded steel without notifying other bidders, and quashed the contract award.

The respondent, a former registered representative of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (IDA), resigned from the IDA.

Over a year later, the IDA instituted disciplinary proceedings against him.

The respondent challenged the IDA's jurisdiction over former members.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) upheld the IDA's jurisdiction, finding that s. 21.1(3) of the Securities Act did not limit disciplinary jurisdiction to current members.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision, finding it unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the OSC's decision was reasonableness and that the OSC's interpretation of the Securities Act was reasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the OSC's decision was restored.

The appellants, having successfully appealed a decision regarding tender documents, sought costs for the appeal and a prior stay motion.

The Crown respondents supported the appeal and sought costs for the original application.

The respondent opposed the amounts claimed as excessive and resisted the Crown's request for application costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants $30,000 in costs for the appeal and stay motion, payable by the respondent, but declined to award the Crown any costs for the original application.