Christopher Yung

The plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel answers to a refused question from the defendant's examination for discovery.

The plaintiffs sought underlying financial source documents to test the defendant's unaudited financial statements, which were relevant to their claims for bonus shares and share valuation.

The Master granted the motion, finding the documents relevant to the pleadings and not disproportionate given the defendant's significant gross revenue, while excluding projections and forecasts for periods after the valuation date.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $255,000.

The plaintiff argued the costs should be reserved to the trial judge as the motion's efforts would reduce trial preparation.

The court rejected reserving all costs, noting the motion should not have been brought, but recognized that some work would be useful for trial.

The court issued a hybrid costs order: $100,000 payable forthwith, $77,500 payable in any event of the cause, and $77,500 payable in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for over $25 million USD in a complex action involving allegations of breach of contract and conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a surfeit of genuine issues requiring a trial, including highly contested facts regarding pre-contract representations, alleged collusion, and the interpretation of multiple contracts created in a convoluted factual nexus.

The court concluded it would not be in the interests of justice to decide the action summarily.

The applicant sought an oppression remedy or winding-up order against his brother and the family business, Clifton Plastics Ltd., regarding payments made to the brother after their father's retirement and subsequent incapacity.

The respondent brought a counter-application for an accounting and wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found no oppression but ordered a winding-up under s. 207 of the OBCA, requiring the applicant to purchase the respondent's shares at fair market value, reduced by $35,000 due to unequal contributions, and without attributing value to alleged shareholder loans.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment seeking to have the respondents' action declared statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The critical issue was whether the respondent lender, Trez Capital, had knowledge of the appellants' ownership interest in the project corporations prior to the expiration of the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge conducted a mini-trial on the disputed question of what was disclosed during a September 13, 2013 telephone call between the respondent's representative and Trez's representative.

The motion judge preferred the evidence of Trez's representative and found that the appellants' ownership interest was not disclosed during that call, thereby rejecting the limitation defence.

The appellants appealed on multiple grounds, including that the motion judge made findings beyond what was necessary to determine the motion, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and erred in law regarding the limitations period analysis.