Cory A. Gilmore

The moving parties (defendants) sought an order to approve a loan and dispense with the consent of the responding parties (plaintiffs) for the loan and future financing.

The moving parties argued that the responding parties' refusal to consent was oppressive and intended to leverage a buyout.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties had not made a claim for oppression and that the court could not use its inherent jurisdiction to rewrite a commercial agreement negotiated at arm's length by sophisticated parties.

Despite the responding parties' success, the court declined to award costs due to their inequitable conduct.

The applicants, affiliated companies in the oil and gas sector, sought approval of a reverse vesting order (RVO) under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The RVO was opposed by several municipalities because it would extinguish significant outstanding municipal tax liabilities.

The court approved the RVO, finding that it met the requirements of section 36 of the CCAA and the Soundair principles.

The court concluded that the RVO was the only commercially viable alternative to a bankruptcy, which would have disastrous consequences for all stakeholders and leave no funds for environmental obligations or municipal taxes.

Following a motion where the tenant successfully obtained relief from forfeiture and the landlord successfully obtained all rent arrears, both parties sought costs.

The landlord sought $300,000 based on partial indemnity and an unaccepted offer to settle, while the tenant sought $218,388 or that each party bear their own costs.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs, noting the divided success, the withdrawal of the landlord's offer to settle prior to the hearing, and the unique and unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Export Development Canada (EDC) brought a motion to temporarily stay the respondent's application pending the resolution of a related action.

The respondent, a trade financing lender, sought a declaration regarding coverage under an export credit insurance policy issued by EDC.

EDC argued that the validity of a power of attorney, which was being challenged in the related action, needed to be determined first.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that EDC had delayed in taking its position, the related action was proceeding slowly, and a stay would cause significant prejudice to the respondent.

The Law Society of Ontario applied for a trusteeship order to take possession of a suspended lawyer's property and wind up his practice.

The lawyer's license had been suspended for failing to cooperate with an investigation, and he allegedly continued to advertise his practice and failed to comply with suspension guidelines.

The court granted the trusteeship order but suspended its operation pending the outcome of the lawyer's appeal of his disciplinary decision, balancing the protection of the public with fairness to the lawyer.

The plaintiff, a food and beverage operator, sued the defendant hotel for unlawful and bad faith termination of their commercial leases and service agreements.

The hotel terminated the agreements during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging unpaid rent and other breaches, while secretly negotiating with a replacement operator.

The court found the termination was unlawful and in bad faith, as the hotel wrongfully withheld deposits, owed the plaintiff money, and unreasonably refused to assist with a government rent subsidy application.

The court awarded the plaintiff reliance damages for its capital investments and employee termination costs, less a set-off for the hotel's proven counterclaim.

The plaintiff tenant, a non-essential retailer, ceased paying rent during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing the landlord breached the lease by failing to provide a first-class shopping centre due to government-mandated closures and restrictions.

The landlord sought to terminate the lease.

The court held that the landlord was not in breach of the lease, as it was complying with provincial laws, and the tenant was not entitled to an abatement of rent.

However, the court granted the tenant relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act, allowing a structured deferral of rent arrears with interest, noting the tenant's prior unblemished record and the unprecedented nature of the pandemic.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action against them, arguing the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs alleged a massive international fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of $3.5 billion USD, with funds allegedly traced to the moving parties.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on contracts formed in the province, property located in Ontario, and the necessity of hearing the claim as a whole in a single jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award of $625,551.19 in favour of the respondent partnership, arguing a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The applicant claimed the arbitrator failed to apply common law principles requiring dissolution and an accounting before a partnership can sue a partner, and improperly denied documentary productions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding the arbitrator's decisions were reasonable, the applicant was estopped from changing his legal position late in the arbitration, and the production rulings were procedural matters within the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sued their former insurer, Economical, and a related foundation, claiming entitlement to demutualization benefits after Economical declined to renew their home insurance policy due to their claims history.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs were not eligible policyholders on the crystallization date for demutualization benefits.

The court also held that Economical had no duty to warn the plaintiffs about its internal underwriting guidelines or to renew the policy, and that the claim was statute-barred as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The University of Sudbury brought a motion to set aside a Notice of Disclaimer issued by Laurentian University under section 32 of the CCAA.

Laurentian University sought to disclaim the Federation Agreements with its federated universities as part of its financial restructuring.

The moving party argued the disclaimer was issued in bad faith, would cause significant financial hardship, and would negatively impact French language rights.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no bad faith, insufficient evidence of significant financial hardship to outweigh the restructuring needs, and noting that the moving party had already resolved to become an independent francophone university.

The court concluded the disclaimer was necessary for Laurentian University to present a viable plan to its creditors and avoid bankruptcy.

The applicants, judgment creditors of the respondents for over $26 million USD arising from a fraudulent lending scheme, moved to discontinue the payment of living expenses and legal fees to the respondents and their related trusts from the receivership estate.

The trusts brought a cross-motion to strike the Receiver's Eleventh Report, arguing the Receiver exceeded its mandate by tracing funds and making observations about badges of a sham trust.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the Receiver acted within its court-ordered investigatory powers and did not usurp the court's role.

The court granted the applicants' motion to terminate funding, holding that the respondents had exhausted their appeals, were now judgment debtors, and failed to meet the test for funding from frozen assets, as they had not provided full disclosure and the funds belonged to their creditors.

The applicant ex-spouse sought a declaration for the proceeds of the deceased's Locked-in Retirement Account (LIRA) based on a 1997 beneficiary designation.

The respondent estate and parents opposed, relying on a 2001 designation changing the beneficiary to the parents, of which only a photocopy could be found, and a 2005 final matrimonial release.

The court dismissed the application, finding the 2001 photocopy was a valid instrument under the Succession Law Reform Act that revoked the 1997 designation.

Furthermore, the 2005 matrimonial settlement and release precluded the applicant's claim, and awarding her the LIRA would result in unjust enrichment.

The applicants, a syndicate of lenders and various construction trades, sought declarations that the respondent surety could not rescind performance and payment bonds issued for a hospital redevelopment project.

The surety had discovered alleged fraud and collusion in the procurement process and commenced a separate action for rescission.

The applicants argued they were innocent third parties whose rights under the bonds could not be defeated by the alleged fraud of the principals.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants' rights were derivative of the principals and that rescission remained a possible equitable remedy that must be determined on a full factual record at trial.

Following a consent judgment resolving an estate dispute, the court determined the outstanding issues of costs and interest.

The respondent, an ODSP recipient, had sought to structure his inheritance to preserve his benefits, leading to a multi-year delay caused largely by the estate trustee's unreasonable insistence on compensation and costs.

The court awarded the respondent his costs of $27,800 payable from the residue of the estate.

Applying the common law rule of convenience, the court also awarded the respondent interest on his delayed $660,000 inheritance at a rate of 1% per annum from the one-year anniversary of the testator's death.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff recovered a $1.5M fee and defeated a counterclaim, the plaintiff sought costs of $680,152.55.

The defendant argued the plaintiff's offer to settle was served 1.5 hours late and thus did not trigger the mandatory cost consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court applied a holistic approach under Rule 49.13, finding the offer provided adequate time to assess risk in an all-or-nothing case.

The court exercised its residual discretion and awarded the plaintiff its requested costs.

The Plaintiffs (UDG) sought an anti-suit injunction to halt proceedings against them in Dubai and Singapore concerning an alleged outstanding debt and guarantees.

The Defendants (TAP) cross-moved to dismiss or stay the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, citing forum selection clauses.

The court denied the anti-suit injunction, finding UDG failed to meet the Amchem test, particularly by not pursuing stays in the foreign jurisdictions.

The court also found Ontario was not the natural forum, given the parties' residences, witness locations, and applicable foreign laws.

The Plaintiffs' Ontario action was permanently stayed.

This complex motion involved the defendants, Dr. Saad and the Canadian Companies, seeking to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and receivership orders previously granted to the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the political motivations behind the litigation and the legitimate commercial relationships between the parties.

The plaintiffs sought to continue and vary the orders.

The court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the Mareva order against Dr. Saad, continuing it.

However, the Norwich and Receivership orders against the Canadian Companies were set aside due to non-material but impactful non-disclosure that changed the factual landscape, making the orders overly broad.

The court also addressed the application of the deemed undertaking rule for documents obtained through Norwich orders.

The case involved a claim by Scotia Capital Inc. against Aphria Inc. for an "Independence Fee" under an engagement letter for financial advisory services in defending a hostile takeover bid, and a counterclaim by Aphria for defamation related to Scotia's discontinuation of analyst coverage.

The court found that Scotia successfully defended Aphria against the takeover bid, entitling it to the Independence Fee.

The court dismissed Aphria's defense arguments of lack of causality and repudiation.

The court also dismissed Aphria's counterclaim for defamation, finding no evidence that the discontinuation of coverage lowered Aphria's reputation or caused economic loss.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as Estate Trustee, sought the court's advice and directions regarding the Will of Elizabeth Charles, specifically concerning her son Robert Charles's option to purchase the deceased's property using his residual inheritance and his obligation to pay occupation rent.

The court ruled that Robert could not use his undetermined residual share to purchase the property, as the Will required a cash purchase and his share was subject to outstanding passing of accounts and hotchpot accounting.

The court also ordered Robert to pay occupation rent from May 1, 2021, finding no juristic reason for his continued rent-free occupancy after the purchase option expired.