Christopher Lee

The appellant real estate developers sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a cost-sharing dispute with an electricity distributor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the OEB had merely provided an opinion and had not exercised a statutory power of decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the OEB's interpretation of the Distribution System Code to resolve the parties' complaint constituted a final, binding decision under its exclusive statutory jurisdiction.

As such, the decision was of a sufficiently public character to attract public law remedies, including certiorari, and constituted the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicant, a local baseball and softball association, sought a declaration compelling the respondent, a provincial softball association, to grant it membership.

The respondent had denied the applicant's membership applications based on operating rules not contained in its by-laws.

The court found that the applicant had standing as a complainant under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, met the membership criteria set out in the respondent's by-laws, and that the respondent had no discretion to deny membership based on criteria outside its by-laws.

The application was granted.

Two applications were brought to determine the fair market value of shares held by the late Silvio Marsili in 438506 Ontario Limited, pursuant to a buy-sell agreement triggered by his death.

The parties' expert business valuators disagreed on valuation methodology, EBITDA normalizations, contingent liabilities, and the minority discount.

The court resolved the specific valuation disputes, preferring the respondent's expert on methodology but the applicant's expert on several normalizations and contingent liabilities.

The court directed the experts to prepare revised valuation opinions incorporating its findings.

The court also granted the applicant's request for an order for the sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against his brothers and their jointly owned corporations amidst a family business dispute.

On the return motion, the defendants argued the injunction should be set aside due to the plaintiff's failure to provide full and frank disclosure of material facts, including his involvement in prior litigation and his control over a corporate mortgage.

The court agreed that the plaintiff breached his duty of full and frank disclosure and discharged the Mareva injunction over the defendants' personal assets.

However, the court exercised its discretion to grant an alternate interim injunction securing specific corporate cash accounts and real properties pending trial.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against his brothers and their jointly owned corporate entities.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dissipating assets, selling properties without his knowledge or consent, and transferring funds to avoid sharing them equally as previously agreed.

The court found that the motion should proceed ex parte due to the risk of further asset dissipation if notice were given.

Applying the test for a Mareva injunction, the court found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, a risk of asset removal, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted a temporary Mareva injunction freezing the defendants' assets.

The parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

Prior to closing, the property sustained water damage from a flooded basement.

The vendors delayed notifying the purchasers until the day before closing and only offered an opportunity to inspect on the closing date.

Both parties alleged the other breached the agreement when the transaction failed to close.

The court held that the vendors breached the agreement by failing to satisfy implied terms requiring timely notice and a meaningful opportunity to inspect, and by acting in bad faith.

The purchasers were entitled to the return of their deposit.

The defendants moved to set aside a Mareva injunction granted four years prior, citing delay and new expert evidence.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment or to strike the defendants' statement of defence in a complex fraud action involving a factoring company.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the delay was largely attributable to their own failure to produce documents and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, concluding that the extensive conflicting circumstantial evidence and credibility issues required a full trial, and that partial summary judgment was inappropriate.

The motion to strike the defence was dismissed as premature.

The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate in a municipal election, applied for a court-ordered recount under section 58 of the Municipal Elections Act.

The applicant raised numerous complaints regarding the vote-by-mail process, electronic tabulators, and alleged lack of transparency.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's complaints were based on speculation and conjecture rather than credible evidence, and that there was no objective basis to doubt the validity of the election results.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the respondent municipality.