Corey Brian Bergstein

The applicants, shareholders of Eneighbl Inc., brought an application against John Walt, Sylvie Tremblay, and Eneighbl Inc. for various claims including misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, oppression, negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract related to share redemption.

The court dismissed claims of misrepresentation, fraud, fiduciary duty, misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and oppression, finding the applicants were sophisticated investors who made their own decisions despite Mr. Walt's mental health issues and the speculative nature of the business.

However, the court found Mr. Walt liable for breach of contract for failing to redeem the applicants' shares at their original purchase price and for personal loans.

Eneighbl Inc. was found liable for expense reimbursements.

The application against Ms. Tremblay was dismissed entirely.

The court declined to award costs to the successful applicants due to their disingenuous conduct and unproven serious allegations.

The applicant sought declarations for a prescriptive easement over a portion of an adjoining property for a vehicle turnaround area and for ownership by adverse possession of a narrow strip of land on another adjoining property.

The court found that the applicant established all five criteria for a prescriptive easement, demonstrating continuous, uninterrupted, open, and peaceable use for over 20 years without permission, and that the use was reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement.

The court also found that the applicant established adverse possession of the strip of land for over 10 years prior to the land's conversion to Land Titles.

Both declarations were granted in favour of the applicant.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion for summary judgment in an action brought by the respondents.

The appellant sought to end the Ontario action based on a previously dismissed lawsuit brought by the respondent against the appellant in India relating to the same cause of action.

The appellant invoked res judicata and abuse of process defences, and relied on a provision of the Indian Civil Procedure Code.

The motion judge denied the motion, finding that the respondent had never been served in the Indian action and no disposition had been made on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's treatment of the Indian law provision or in the application of res judicata and abuse of process doctrines.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by Indian procedural law (Order 23, Rule 1(4)) or, alternatively, by Ontario doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.

This argument stemmed from a prior lawsuit in India, commenced by one of the plaintiffs against the defendant, which was abandoned before service on the defendant and dismissed without a determination on the merits.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that neither Indian law, which requires service for the procedural bar to apply, nor Ontario law, which requires a decision on the merits for res judicata or actual litigation for abuse of process, precluded the current action.