Claudio Romeo Aiello

In an addendum on costs following prior motion reasons, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs payable by the unsuccessful defendants.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs of $30,336, while the responding defendants argued for no costs or reduced partial indemnity costs.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57.01(1), proportionality, and the fair-and-reasonable standard, the court rejected substantial indemnity as unwarranted in the circumstances.

After considering mixed success, conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding, and reasonableness of quantum, the court fixed all-inclusive partial indemnity costs at $20,000 payable within 30 days.

This addendum on costs addresses the determination of costs following an interim motion.

The defendant, Temagami Barge Limited, sought partial indemnity costs of $25,520.68 from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, argued for no costs or reduced costs due to mixed results and a vague costs outline.

The court, applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, fixed the costs award at $12,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the plaintiff to Temagami Barge Limited.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Nadeau J. dated August 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no Costs Outline was provided, the court ordered no costs.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the Crown and its witnesses to answer questions refused during cross-examinations.

The examinations related to the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the action for abuse of process, based on an alleged secret agreement between the Crown and a co-defendant.

The court ordered the Crown and the witnesses to answer the questions and produce the requested documents, finding them relevant to the abuse of process allegations.

The client obtained an Order for Assessment of his former solicitor's unpaid accounts but later brought a motion to amend the Order to remove the unpaid accounts, claiming he had not retained the solicitor for those matters.

The solicitor brought a cross-motion to add the client's corporations to the assessment.

The court dismissed the client's motion, finding the belated dispute of the retainer was a subterfuge to delay payment.

The court granted the solicitor's cross-motion to add the corporations, as the client was their directing mind and their exclusion was an oversight.

Robert Reed, a former employee and minority shareholder of Cooper-Gordon Ltd. (CGL), brought a motion for leave to appeal an arbitral decision on questions of law under s. 45 of the Arbitrations Act, 1991.

Reed sought to appeal the arbitrator's findings on wrongful dismissal notice period, unpaid bonuses and RRSP contributions, share valuation, and claims for punitive damages or oppression remedy.

The court granted leave to appeal on two issues: the mathematical error in calculating the wrongful dismissal notice period (one month difference) and the arbitrator's omission to address Reed's claims for unpaid RRSP and bonus payments from 2016-2019.

Leave was denied for the share valuation, oppression/punitive damages, and procedural fairness claims, as these were deemed questions of fact or mixed fact and law, or lacked sufficient legal merit.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation against a property owned by the respondents.

The appellant had sued one of the respondents for defective construction work and alleged that the subsequent sale of the respondent's home to his daughter and son-in-law was a fraudulent conveyance.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge erred in law on the second branch of the test for issuing a CPL, she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, an Ontario wine agent, brought an action against the defendant, a New York-based wine distributor, for damages in lieu of reasonable notice following the unilateral termination of their 15-year unwritten agency relationship.

The defendant terminated the relationship without notice to consolidate its Canadian distribution with a single new agent.

The court found that the distributorship agreement was terminable only upon reasonable notice, rejecting the defendant's argument that no notice was required.

The court determined that a 15-month notice period was appropriate, considering the plaintiff's significant efforts in building the brand in Ontario, and awarded damages based on lost commissions and unpaid invoices.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to claim a $100,000 deposit after the defendant purchasers failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants had submitted an unconditional offer but failed to close due to financing issues, and subsequently attempted to cloud the title to prevent resale.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the deposit was a true deposit subject to forfeiture.

The court rejected the defendants' claim for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit amount proportionate and no unconscionability in the plaintiffs retaining it.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, which admitted having insufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential costs award, though its shareholders were not impecunious.

The court, applying a holistic approach under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that it was just to order security for costs.

The plaintiff's claim was found to be arguable but not demonstrated to have a good chance of success on the merits.

The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to post $60,000 for one group of defendants and $45,000 for another, covering the pleading and discovery stages, and awarded motion costs to the successful defendants.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision allowing the respondent tenant to exercise an option to purchase a commercial property.

The landlord argued the tenant was in default of rent payments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the tenant's obligation to pay rent was conditional on the successful completion of an asset purchase agreement, which had been delayed pending regulatory approval.

The tenant's cross-appeal for damages for rent paid during the delayed closing period was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence quantifying the loss.

This case involved an application and counter-application concerning a commercial sub-lease and an option to purchase real property.

The Landlord (2405416 Ontario Ltd.) sought a declaration that the Tenant (2405490 Ontario Inc.) had defaulted on the sub-lease, terminating it, and obligating the Tenant to sell its business to the Landlord.

The Tenant counter-applied for a declaration compelling the Landlord to sell the premises under the option to purchase, and for damages for rent paid.

The court found that the Tenant was not in default regarding rent payments or renovations, interpreting the lease's rent commencement date as conditional on the closing of an Asset Purchase Agreement and the issuance of a body-rub licence.

The court also found the Landlord's complaints to be a pretext for refusing to comply with its obligations.

The Tenant's counter-application was granted in part, affirming its right to purchase the property, but its claim for damages for rent paid was dismissed.

The Landlord's application was dismissed.

The Appellants, motor vehicle dealers facing registration revocation, moved to adjourn their hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

They sought the adjournment to pursue an application for judicial review of an earlier interlocutory order regarding disclosure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm if the hearing proceeded.

The Tribunal concluded that the public interest in the timely regulation of motor vehicle trades and the potential prejudice to the Registrar's consumer witnesses outweighed any prejudice to the Appellants.

The appellants, motor vehicle dealers facing registration revocation, brought a motion for disclosure of completed and ongoing investigations by the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose all relevant information from completed investigations, regardless of format.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for disclosure of ongoing investigations, finding that such information is protected by public interest privilege and the appellants failed to establish that the information sought went to the root of their defence.

The Director of the MVDA was denied party status but granted intervener status on the motion.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order continuing a Mareva injunction against them.

The injunction was largely based on information obtained by the plaintiff's counsel from the RCMP, which had received it from FINTRAC and US law enforcement.

The defendants argued this disclosure breached privacy laws.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's conclusion that the RCMP's disclosure of personal information to a private lawyer for a civil fraud action was authorized under the Privacy Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

The court also found the tension between privacy and access to information to be a matter of public importance.

The plaintiff moved to continue a Mareva injunction freezing assets allegedly connected to a multi‑million dollar international fraud scheme.

One defendant opposed continuation of the injunction, arguing material non‑disclosure, delay, lack of evidence connecting the defendants to the fraud, absence of risk of dissipation of assets, and insufficiency of the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages.

The court held that any alleged non‑disclosure regarding the plaintiff corporation’s status or its principal’s personal bankruptcy was not material and did not justify dissolving the injunction.

The court further found that the criteria for a Mareva injunction were met, including a strong prima facie case of fraud and a risk of dissipation of assets inferred from suspicious financial transfers.

The Mareva injunction was continued until trial or further order, subject to conditions requiring proof of the plaintiff corporation’s good standing and notice to the principal’s bankruptcy trustee.

The defendants moved to vary a previously granted Mareva injunction that capped restrained assets at $1.6 million, seeking removal of certain real properties from the injunction based on updated valuation evidence.

The plaintiff did not dispute the valuations but raised concerns regarding outstanding mortgages on some properties and sought to restructure the injunction so that it first applied to one defendant’s assets before reaching another’s.

The court accepted evidence that the mortgages were either discharged or easily dischargeable and concluded that the total value of remaining restrained assets exceeded the $1.6 million cap.

The injunction was varied to permit mortgage discharges and to remove specified properties from the schedule while maintaining sufficient assets under restraint.

The plaintiff’s cross-motion to prioritize enforcement against particular defendants’ assets was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought continuation of a Mareva injunction freezing assets in a civil fraud action alleging an international investment scheme involving silicon germanium transactions.

The defendants opposed continuation of the injunction, sought to expunge FINTRAC materials and a U.S. criminal complaint from the motion record, and alternatively requested that the plaintiff post security for the undertaking as to damages.

The court held that hearsay evidence contained in a U.S. criminal complaint was admissible on a motion under Rule 39.01(4) and that the FINTRAC report was properly disclosed through the RCMP and was both relevant and admissible.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, a risk of dissipation of assets, and no material non‑disclosure.

The Mareva injunction was continued and no order for security was imposed.

The defendant brought a motion to cap the monetary scope of an uncapped Mareva injunction that had frozen all of the defendants’ assets in relation to a fraud claim valued at approximately $824,000.

The plaintiff argued the injunction should remain uncapped due to evidence of a broader alleged fraudulent scheme and the possibility of additional victims asserting claims.

The court held that absent other commenced claims, it was unfair to restrain assets far exceeding the plaintiff’s claim.

The Mareva injunction was therefore capped at $1.6 million, reflecting the compensatory claim plus anticipated investigative and legal costs, and limited primarily to real estate assets.

The defendant’s request to examine the plaintiff’s senior counsel regarding the origin of investigative evidence was denied as speculative and unnecessary.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a settlement with the respondent general contractor regarding substantial renovations to their family home.

The issue was whether the settlement included amounts potentially owed to a millwork sub-contractor with whom the appellants had dealt directly.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the settlement did not include work carried out by the sub-contractor as a result of direct dealings with the appellants.