Colin Pendrith

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated December 19, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court declined to award costs of the motion.

Appeal from a summary judgment order finding the appellants liable for civil fraud in connection with a fraudulent warranty repair scheme.

The appellants, through Eaton Equipment Ltd., submitted falsified invoices and receipts to Canadian Tire Corporation for repairs that were never performed, resulting in losses exceeding $3.2 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment against all appellants except Carleigh Milburn.

It held that the motion judge's reasoning as to her knowledge of the fraud was insufficiently explained and left an inferential gap between her dealings with her father's funds and the conclusion that she knowingly participated, so the summary judgment against her was set aside.

The appeal was allowed as it relates to Carleigh Milburn and dismissed as it relates to the other individual and corporate appellants.

Given her success on appeal, she was exempted from the costs ordered on appeal and released from liability for the costs ordered in the court below.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by the appellants for a Norwich-type order seeking production of insurance-related documents from non-parties in the context of an appeal.

The court held that Norwich orders are a pre-trial remedy and are not available at the appellate stage.

The court also found that, even if such an order were available, it would not be appropriate in this case given the findings of fraud against the appellants and the lack of relevance of insurance proceeds to the damages award.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicants, a group of companies undergoing CCAA proceedings, sought to extend the existing stay of proceedings to DAK Capital Inc., a non-debtor third-party guarantor involved in an arbitration with Canopy Growth Corporation.

Canopy opposed, arguing that CCAA s. 11.04 prohibits such an extension for guarantors.

The court, relying on the broad inherent jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 and recent Ontario precedents, found that s. 11.04 is a clarifying provision, not a prohibitive one, and granted the temporary stay against DAK Capital to prevent distraction from the ongoing restructuring efforts.

BZAM Ltd. and Cortland Credit Lending Corporation brought a motion for security for costs against Final Bell Holdings International Ltd. within an ongoing CCAA proceeding.

Final Bell had initiated a claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation against BZAM and seeking damages and equitable relief, including a constructive trust.

The court determined that Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning security for costs, applies to claims within CCAA proceedings, and that Cortland, as a directly affected stakeholder, was entitled to seek such security.

Finding that Final Bell was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, the court ordered Final Bell to post security for costs in favour of BZAM ($350,000) and Cortland ($147,000).

Additionally, Final Bell was ordered to pay the costs of the motion to BZAM ($20,000) and Cortland ($8,500).

The defendants in two related oppression actions brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer refused questions and to produce a solicitor's file.

The defendants also sought leave to examine a non-party.

The refused questions related to the plaintiffs' consultations with lawyers, which the defendants argued were relevant to their limitation period defence and discoverability.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested information and files were protected by solicitor-client privilege, which had not been waived, and were not relevant to the discoverability issue since the consultations occurred within the two-year limitation period.

The request to examine the non-party was also dismissed as the communications were privileged.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion.

The appellants (defendants in the original action) sought to dismiss Canadian Tire's fraud action, arguing it arose from their expressions related to public interest (complaints about privacy violations and defective products).

The motion judge found the action did not arise from an expression and that the plaintiff's motive was irrelevant at the threshold stage of a SLAPP analysis under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this, holding that a plaintiff's motive is not a relevant factor at the first stage of the SLAPP analysis, which is restricted to determining if the action arises from an expression related to a matter of public interest.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, as the motion judge properly exercised discretion.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated March 22, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the aggregate amount of $20,000.

Canopy Growth Corporation brought an unopposed motion under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the stay of proceedings against 3 Sixty Secure Corp. and 3 Sixty Risk Solutions Ltd. The purpose was to pursue a claim related to a fire at Canopy's property, seeking recovery on a potential insurance contract.

The court granted the order, finding no prejudice to the company or other creditors, as any insurance proceeds would only be available to third parties like Canopy, not general creditors.

The appellant, Cipponeri Construction Services Inc. (CCSI), appealed a motion judge's order dismissing its 2020 action against Westin Homes Ltd. and Michael Orsi as an abuse of process.

The 2020 action was commenced to preserve a limitation period for a claim against Westin that had been ineffectively asserted in a prior 2018 counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in dismissing the 2020 action against Westin as an abuse of process, as it was initiated to preserve a limitation period.

The court varied the order, staying the 2020 action against Westin, requiring CCSI to promptly move to amend the 2018 counterclaim to add itself as a plaintiff, and stipulating that no limitation period defense prior to March 16, 2020, would be asserted.

The dismissal against Orsi personally was upheld.

The plaintiffs, Resolute Forest Products Inc. and its affiliates, brought a motion seeking an order to waive the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They sought to use discovery evidence, including documents, from the Ontario action in a related defamation and intentional interference with economic relations action commenced in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California.

The defendants, Greenpeace Canada and its employees, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Resolute failed to demonstrate a superior public interest that would outweigh the privacy protections of the deemed undertaking rule.

The court noted that the parties and issues in the Canadian and US actions were not sufficiently similar to warrant a waiver, and that Rule 30.1.01(6) already permits the use of discovery evidence for impeachment in another proceeding, including foreign ones.

The court also found that Resolute was not sufficiently particular about what specific evidence was required.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was a SLAPP intended to silence their complaints about the plaintiff selling defective products and violating privacy laws.

The plaintiff's action alleged the defendants perpetrated a fraudulent scheme involving false repair receipts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet the threshold burden under s. 137.1(3) because the plaintiff's claim was grounded in fraud, not in any expressions made by the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated April 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

This endorsement addresses three motions in an oppression action concerning the Paramount Group, a food services business facing shareholder deadlock.

The plaintiffs (Mohamad Fakih et al.) moved to strike portions of the defendants' counterclaim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and for security for costs.

The defendants (AHM Investments Corporation et al.) moved for compliance with financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor.

The court partially granted the motion to strike due to insufficient particulars of fraud.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, as the counterclaim was inextricably linked to the defence and, at its core, an oppression remedy claim, which is exempt from security for costs under the OBCA.

The defendants' motion for financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor was granted, affirming shareholders' mandatory right to audited financial statements, with the Paramount Group responsible for the audit fees.

The defendants brought a cross-motion under Rule 21.01(3)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal capacity to commence or continue the action.

The defendants argued that the loan funds were not advanced by Scott Dorey, that the Dorey Capital Family Trust (DCFT) had conveyed its rights to the funds to other entities, and that Ora Trustees Limited had not proven its trusteeship.

The plaintiffs disputed these claims, asserting that Scott Dorey was a proper party, that no valid transfer of receivables occurred, or that they were transferred back to DCFT, and provided evidence of Ora's trusteeship.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test for Rule 21 motions, noting that such motions are not for resolving serious factual disputes or credibility issues.

Given the numerous disputed facts and credibility determinations required regarding the alleged transfers of the loan receivable and the chain of trusteeship, the court dismissed the defendants' motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to continue the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative for a further 4.5 days, while the defendant submitted that only one further day was appropriate.

The action involves claims of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations.

The case management judge found the motion to be a waste of the court's time and ordered a compromise of two additional days (12 hours) of discovery, noting the parties had previously consented to exceed the seven-hour limit under Rule 31.05.1.

The plaintiffs' request regarding a Request to Admit was deemed moot as the defendant had delivered a compliant response prior to the hearing.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Koehnen J. The Divisional Court issued an amended endorsement to reflect that the moving parties were represented by counsel, as a Notice of Change of Lawyer had been filed but not uploaded to Caselines.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding the calculation of a net profits interest in a mining property.

The respondent argued the arbitration agreement precluded appeals, but the court found no such exclusion.

However, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement involved questions of mixed fact and law, and the applicant failed to identify any extricable errors of law.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the conservation authority to consider its permit application under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the order would have no practical value or effect because the proposed development would violate the Provincial Policy Statement's prohibition against development in a floodway.

The court also noted concerns regarding the applicant's delay in bringing the application.

The defendants moved to strike or stay the Canadian action brought against them by the plaintiffs, arguing it was an abuse of process or should be stayed due to a parallel U.S. action commenced by related plaintiffs against related defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the U.S. action involved different defendants, different causes of action, different laws, and different jurisdictions.

The court held that the plaintiffs' conduct was not vexatious or oppressive, and the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice to justify a permanent or temporary stay.