Clifford Cole

The succeeding estate trustees moved under Rule 59.06 to vary prior costs awards made after dismissal of their contempt motion regarding document production under an estate judgment.

They argued accidental slip, omission, and newly discovered facts, including post-endorsement waiver of privilege over lawyer file materials.

The court held Rule 59.06 is exceptional, does not permit a re-argument or review of judicial reasoning, and found no error in expressing the court’s manifest intention.

The court also found no new fact justifying variation and dismissed the motion.

This decision concerns cross-motions for production in a complex commercial dispute involving Paragon Protection Ltd., Tamstu-Harjon Holdings of Canada Limited, and related parties.

The central issue was the scope of privilege over various documents, including those arising from related estate litigation and legal advice received over several decades.

The court clarified the law on waiver of privilege, settlement privilege, and the production of documents, granting and denying relief in part to both sides.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal concerning the enforcement of a Letter of Request (LoR) from a U.S. court.

The LoR sought confidential financial and valuation documents from Matvil Corp., a non-party, to assist Actava TV, Inc.'s damages expert in a U.S. action using a "yardstick" method.

The Court found that the application judge erred in her relevance and public policy analyses, and failed to adequately consider Canadian sovereignty.

The requested information was deemed overly broad, speculative, and not directly relevant to the material issues in the U.S. action, and its disclosure would be contrary to Canadian public policy given the sensitive nature of the data and the inadequacy of protective orders.

The appellant landlord appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the parties had agreed to reinstate a commercial lease and that the landlord fundamentally breached that agreement by insisting on additional terms before allowing the tenant to re-enter the premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings of fact, which were supported by the evidence.

The court found that the tenant had matched the landlord's terms for reinstatement and that the landlord's subsequent demand for additional payments constituted a fundamental breach of the reinstatement agreement.

A professional accounting body sought a statutory injunction under s. 30(1) of the Certified General Accountants Act, 2010 to prevent the respondents from using the designation “CGMA” (Chartered Global Management Accountant) in Ontario.

The applicant argued the designation contravened s. 26 of the Act by incorporating the protected initials “CGA” and implying the holder was a Certified General Accountant.

The court applied modern statutory interpretation principles and the rule that statutes creating professional monopolies must be strictly construed.

It held that the specific quoted designations protected by the statute did not extend to the acronym CGMA and that the designation did not imply a Certified General Accountant.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a contravention of the Act on a balance of probabilities.

Following a summary judgment motion resolved by agreement, the applicant sought costs against the respondent Figueira.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs based on the clear wording of a promissory note signed by the respondent, which provided for 'all costs of the collection'.

The court apportioned the total costs claimed among the three respondents and awarded the applicant $39,500 in full indemnity costs against Figueira.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning whether corporate decisions favouring a chief executive officer were protected by the business judgment rule and whether the executive was entitled to severance benefits, the court found that the executive breached fiduciary duties but remained entitled to severance under his employment arrangements, subject to recalculation excluding benefits arising from the breach.

Both sides claimed substantial success and sought significant costs awards, including requests for substantial indemnity costs based on abandoned allegations and trial outcomes.

The court held that the litigation involved two principal issues—fiduciary breach and entitlement to severance—and each party succeeded on one of them.

Because success was effectively divided and no settlement offers were made, the court determined that neither party should recover costs.

The applicant, a creditor of the debtor company under CCAA protection, sought an order authorizing it to file a plan of compromise or arrangement and directing meetings of affected creditors to vote on the plan.

The proposed plan did not include a shareholder vote.

The debtor opposed the application, arguing the plan was not in the best interests of stakeholders and improperly excluded shareholders.

The court found that because the debtor's shares had potential equity value depending on the outcome of pending litigation, and the proposed plan would radically alter the economic prospects of the shares, a shareholder vote was required.

The application to order a meeting of creditors without a shareholder vote was denied.

The applicant sought an anti-suit injunction restraining the respondents from continuing a patent and contract dispute before a United States federal court in Illinois.

The respondents alleged that the applicant, as successor to a corporation that had entered a settlement agreement containing an Illinois forum selection clause, was bound by the agreement and had engaged in conduct infringing U.S. patents.

Applying the test in Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), the court held the applicant failed to show that the foreign court assumed jurisdiction inconsistently with forum non conveniens principles or that substantial injustice would result if the foreign proceeding continued.

The Illinois court had jurisdictional connections including U.S. patents, Illinois governing law, and attornment by other defendants.

The application for an anti-suit injunction was dismissed.