Christopher Harold Karl Wirth

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to vary a Mareva injunction and to compel the responding parties to fund his defence to a contempt motion.

The court found that the moving party had repeatedly failed to disclose his assets as ordered, making it impossible to meet the test for varying the injunction or claiming a need for advance funding.

The court concluded that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying orders and no matter of general importance was raised.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant corporation sought orders under the Securities Act and the Business Corporations Act to restrict certain shareholders from voting shares allegedly acquired in breach of early warning reporting requirements, to declare that a shareholder rights plan “flip‑in event” had occurred, and to invalidate a dissident proxy solicitation ahead of an annual general meeting.

The court declined to address the alleged early warning breach because the matter was already the subject of an ongoing Ontario Securities Commission investigation and had previously been withdrawn from related litigation.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court held that the discretionary remedy of prohibiting voting rights would not be appropriate given the circumstances and absence of harm to the market or shareholders.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents acted jointly or in concert in organizing the proxy solicitation or that the circular was misleading under applicable securities and corporate law regulations.

The application was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal from a master's order, the court was required to determine costs both for the appeal and for the underlying motion before the master.

The parties had agreed that costs of the appeal would be fixed at $5,000 but disputed whether that agreement encompassed the costs of the earlier motion.

The court held that the agreement related only to the appeal and that the master's prior costs disposition had been set aside when the order was reversed on appeal.

Considering the partial indemnity costs outline, the complexity of the motion, and the reasonableness principle governing costs, the court fixed additional costs of $3,000 for the motion before the master.

The appellant appealed a master's order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her notice of action and statement of claim to add a private clinic as a defendant in a medical malpractice action despite the expiry of the presumptive two‑year limitation period.

The court considered whether pleadings and correspondence from the hospital constituted a triggering event under the discoverability provisions of s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the hospital’s defence and cross‑claim, which alleged that treatment occurred in a private clinic, clearly pointed to another potential defendant and triggered the limitation period.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in identifying the clinic despite available information and prolonged inaction by counsel.

The master erred in law by allowing the amendment while leaving the limitation issue to be determined later.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal refusing to renew his registration as a real estate broker.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had participated in a mortgage fraud scheme by providing false appraisals, and concluded he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider imposing conditions on his license and by drawing an adverse inference from his initial exercise of his right to silence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision to revoke the license without conditions was reasonable given the egregious nature of the fraud, and that the Tribunal properly considered the timing of the appellant's cooperation in assessing his rehabilitation.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to stay the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a former employee and member of the union, sued for wrongful expulsion and breach of a settlement agreement after the union terminated his membership benefits.

The defendants argued the plaintiff was required to exhaust internal union procedures before suing.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the law regarding exceptions to the exhaustion rule and that the proposed appeal raised no issues of general importance.

Following the release of the court's reasons, counsel for the appellants requested a reconsideration of the costs of the applications, noting that the appellants were not separately represented as stated in the reasons.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum acknowledging the error but declined to reconsider the costs disposition, finding it remained appropriate because separate applications had been brought.

The appellants, former officers of a local union, were disciplined by an independent hearing officer pursuant to the union's constitution.

The union sought to enforce the hearing officer's decisions as arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application judge granted the enforcement, finding that the union constitution constituted an arbitration agreement.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the internal disciplinary proceedings were not arbitrations and the union constitution was not an arbitration agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement applications were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had dismissed ten applications for certification by the respondent union, finding it was not a construction industry trade union under s. 126(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also made obiter comments regarding s. 15 of the Act.

Because the applicant was successful before the Board in having the certification applications dismissed, the Divisional Court found the application for judicial review to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the Court declined to hear the application, noting there is no public interest in reviewing obiter comments that did not form the ratio of the Board's decision.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against Health Canada, alleging negligent regulation of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that it was plain and obvious that Health Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to individual consumers of medical devices.

The statutory scheme did not create a proximate relationship, and the pleadings failed to allege specific representations or reliance that would establish proximity under the Anns/Cooper test.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment holding them liable for losses in a short sale margin account.

The primary debtor opened the account and the co-appellant guaranteed it.

The appellants argued the investment dealer owed a fiduciary duty to the guarantor and breached a duty of full disclosure by failing to disclose that the primary debtor had not posted the required margin security.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that there was no fiduciary relationship and that the non-disclosure was not material, as the guarantor knew the account was in a loss position and that he was securing that loss.