Daniel Murdoch

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act against Akumin Inc., its directors and officers, and its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, and for certification of the action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The claims arose from alleged misrepresentations in Akumin's financial statements that were later restated.

The court granted leave against the Akumin defendants, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial regarding the alleged misrepresentations and public corrections.

However, the court denied leave against the auditor, EY, finding insufficient evidence that the auditor's statements were material or publicly corrected.

The court certified the action as a global class proceeding against the Akumin defendants, rejecting arguments to exclude American purchasers from the class.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint replacement estate trustees for the estate of her late husband, following the resignation of the previous trustees amidst a highly fractious family dispute.

The applicant sought the appointment of three family members, while the responding parties sought the appointment of a neutral third party, either Scotiatrust or a senior lawyer.

The court found that the extreme animosity between the two family camps necessitated a neutral institutional trustee to prevent further litigation and ensure the estate's administration.

Scotiatrust was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

In an ongoing estate dispute between a widow and her children, the applicant widow brought a motion to add two corporate parties, admit a late affidavit regarding her health, substitute written interrogatories for oral cross-examination, and determine the scope of cross-examination.

The court added the corporate parties, finding one to be a necessary party.

The court admitted the late affidavit but excluded the attached medical reports as inadmissible hearsay.

The court declined to dispense with oral cross-examination, finding insufficient evidence of serious harm, but ordered specific accommodations for the 93-year-old applicant.

Finally, the court limited the scope of cross-examination to the three issues previously deemed urgent to conserve judicial resources.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant condominium corporation's application to enforce a settlement agreement regarding shared amenities.

The respondents argued the dispute was subject to mandatory mediation and arbitration under section 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the parties' Reciprocal Agreement.

The court applied the Haas framework and found that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The motion was granted and the application was stayed in favour of mediation and/or arbitration.

Following a trial where the plaintiff recovered $65,000 in quantum meruit but failed on the contractual claim, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $41,077.25 on a partial indemnity scale, while the defendants argued for $10,000, noting the plaintiff recovered exactly what was offered in 2013.

The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in costs, discounting the amount to reflect the partial nature of recovery and the defendants' prior offer.

The plaintiff, a commercial real estate broker, arranged mortgage refinancing for the defendant's property while employed at a brokerage.

After the plaintiff left his employment, he continued to provide services to the defendant to finalize the refinancing, but the defendant never signed a proposed letter of direction setting out the plaintiff's fee.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the breach of contract claim because the parties never agreed on a price.

However, the court allowed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the defendant received a benefit from the plaintiff's ongoing consulting services without a juristic reason.

The plaintiff was awarded $65,000 in quantum meruit, based on the defendant's own valuation of the services.

AIMCO and CHC MPAR LP entered into a co-ownership agreement to develop a student housing project.

After the project faced zoning rejections, AIMCO and CHC independently acquired a neighbouring property without including MPAR, a 50% shareholder in the general partner.

AIMCO subsequently triggered a shotgun clause to buy out the limited partnership's interest.

MPAR opposed the buyout and applied for relief, alleging oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed MPAR's application, finding no oppressive conduct, fiduciary duties, or contractual breaches, as the agreements explicitly excluded obligations regarding outside business opportunities.

AIMCO's application for specific performance of the shotgun clause was granted.

The applicant sought leave to commence a class action under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act, alleging the respondent mining company failed to disclose a material change regarding the introduction of cement grout pack supports which allegedly caused a decline in production.

The court reviewed the evidence, including expert reports and fact witness affidavits, and found that the overwhelming weight of the evidence demonstrated that cement grout packs were not introduced during the relevant quarter.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's threshold test from Theratechnologies, the court concluded the proposed action had no reasonable prospect of success at trial and dismissed the motion for leave.

The applicant general partner sought a declaration that a third‑party offer to purchase limited partnership units was not bona fide and was a sham designed to trigger right‑of‑first‑refusal provisions in a partnership agreement.

The applicant argued the offer was structured to allow a particular limited partner to obtain sufficient units to gain a veto over extraordinary resolutions requiring 75% approval.

The court considered the legal test for bona fide offers in the context of rights of first refusal, including whether the offer was made in good faith, genuine, and not a sham.

The court held that the offer was a legitimate third‑party offer at a reasonable price and that the evidence did not establish an absence of bona fides.

The application for a declaration was dismissed.

The applicants, former franchisees of a Baton Rouge restaurant, brought an application seeking declarations that a non-competition clause in their franchise agreement was void and unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade or for ambiguity.

They also sought a declaration that their proposed new restaurant menu did not violate the clause, and claimed damages for breach of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the 5-year, 10-kilometre restrictive covenant to be reasonable and unambiguous given its narrow scope, which only prohibited selling products using the franchisor's recipes.

The court declined to rule on the proposed menu without evidence of the actual recipes and found no evidence of bad faith by the franchisor.

In a liquidating CCAA proceeding, the court considered whether a deemed trust under the Pension Benefits Act arose in respect of pension plan wind-up deficiencies, giving priority over secured creditors.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Indalex, the court held that no deemed trust arose because the pension plans were not wound up prior to the CCAA Initial Order.

The court granted the second lien lenders' motion to lift the stay of proceedings to allow a bankruptcy petition to proceed, concluding that imposing a provincial deemed trust priority in the middle of an insolvency proceeding would undermine the predictability and flexibility of the CCAA regime.