Daniel Rosenbluth

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for the value of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) that would have vested during the common law notice period following his wrongful dismissal.

The respondents cross-appealed the finding that the termination provisions of the employment agreement were void for contravening the Employment Standards Act 2000 (ESA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-appeal, upholding the finding that the termination clause violated the ESA.

The Court allowed the appeal regarding the RSUs, finding that the RSU Agreements contravened the ESA by purporting to alter a term or condition of employment during the statutory notice period.

The appellant was awarded damages for the RSUs that would have vested during the 10-month notice period.

The appeal regarding punitive damages was dismissed.

The plaintiffs requested a case conference to address typographical errors in the court's original order granting a stay of proceedings.

The original order mistakenly stayed a discontinued action instead of the 2024 action and omitted the relief allowing the plaintiffs' counterclaim to proceed as undefended.

As the defendants did not object, the court issued a corrected order to accurately reflect its original reasons for decision.

The appellants, a real estate developer and related corporate entities, appealed a judgment granting the respondent lender $12.9 million plus interest on a defaulted commercial loan.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by failing to convert the application to an action, by conducting a credibility analysis on a paper record, and by foreclosing a defence of equitable set-off and counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal found the application judge's reasons were clear and sufficient, the documentary record amply supported the finding that no binding second amending agreement was ever reached, and credibility assessments were not necessary given the strength of the documentary evidence.

The court declined to resolve whether the enhanced fact-finding powers available under r. 20 apply to applications under r. 14, leaving that question for another day.

The appeal was dismissed and full indemnity costs of $55,000 were awarded to the respondent pursuant to the contractual costs clause in the loan agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a stay of proceedings and related relief after discovering that the defendant, a former business partner, had been secretly accessing the plaintiff's personal email account for years.

The account contained privileged communications between the plaintiff and his lawyers regarding their ongoing litigation.

The court applied the three-stage test for unauthorized access to privileged materials.

Finding that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that actual, profound prejudice had occurred, the court concluded the breach was egregious and irremediable.

The court stayed the defendant's actions and ordered the plaintiff's action to proceed undefended.

The bankrupt brought a repeatedly shifting motion seeking directions, stays, disclosure, and litigation “guardrails” concerning estate litigation being prosecuted or assigned by the trustee in bankruptcy.

The court held that the bankrupt lacked standing under s. 37 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because he was not an aggrieved person, and also failed to qualify under s. 119(2) because he was not an interested person and had adduced no evidence of fraud or bad faith by inspectors.

The court further rejected the factual premise of the alleged conflict, finding no evidence of BIA “relatedness” and no basis to interfere with the trustee’s conduct of the Whitehorse Action or with case management orders made by a Superior Court judge.

The motion was dismissed with prejudice.

Because the bankrupt filed improper, late, AI-generated materials containing hallucinated or unreliable citations and made unfounded allegations against the trustee and inspectors, the trustee was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $12,366.72.

The Ontario Securities Commission sought approval of a settlement agreement with the respondent, who admitted to committing fraud and violating registration and prospectus requirements by selling and brokering promissory notes for real estate projects.

The respondent continued to accept investor funds despite knowing the severe liquidity issues of the companies involved, resulting in approximately $90 million in investor losses and her subsequent bankruptcy.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, which included permanent market participation bans but no disgorgement order, noting that a disgorgement order could compete with investor recovery in ongoing civil proceedings.

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful recovery of a loan in the principal amount of approximately $14 million plus accrued interest.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $125,890 based on a provision in the loan agreement, while the respondents argued for partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The court found that the loan agreement provision was sufficiently clear to encompass enforcement costs and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $108,000 inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff, Zitia Developments (2010) Inc., brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property registered in the name of the defendant, Paul Halyk.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of the property, alleging it was purchased in trust for the corporation as part of a larger land assembly for commercial development.

The court found that the plaintiff established a triable interest in the land based on evidence of funding the downpayment and carrying costs.

Applying the Dhunna factors, the court concluded it was just and equitable to grant the CPL, noting the property's integration with the assembled lands and the risk of the plaintiff's claim becoming moot if the property were sold.

This decision concerns a motion for leave to appeal an order approving the sale of a property in receivership.

The moving parties, owners of the property, sought an adjournment to arrange financing to redeem the first mortgage and continue their affordable housing project.

The motion judge denied the adjournment and approved the sale.

On motion for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance, had little merit, and that granting leave would unduly hinder the receivership process.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, the 85-year-old mother of the deceased filmmaker Charles Herbert Officer, sought extensive financial and corporate disclosure from various respondents to support her application for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondents, including the estate trustee, the deceased's former partner, and business associates, had already provided significant financial disclosure, including tax returns, bank statements, and a business valuation.

Justice Faieta dismissed the applicant's motion for further disclosure, finding the requests overbroad, unnecessary, and lacking proportionality, with minor exceptions consented to by the Estate Trustee.

The application was also dismissed on consent against several professional respondents.

The plaintiffs, Tyler Hogan and TGH Holdings Ltd., brought a motion for default judgment against Brent Massaro and BJSM Holdings Ltd., seeking declarations of oppression and breach of fiduciary duties, and an order for the defendants to purchase the plaintiffs' interests in Thunder Bay Broom and Chemical Ltd. The defendants had been noted in default due to their deliberate failure to participate in litigation, including discovery.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was oppressive and breached fiduciary duties, warranting personal liability for Massaro.

The court ordered a buyout of the plaintiffs' shares for $13,350,000, based on an expert valuation that accounted for known misconduct, but declined to include speculative damages for unknown misconduct.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

In the receivership of the Stateview entities, Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion seeking declaratory relief on behalf of purchasers who had paid deposits for pre-construction homes.

Tarion argued that the deposits were subject to an express or constructive trust and sought a remedial constructive trust to elevate the purchasers' priority.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the purchasers had contractually subordinated their interests to secured lenders.

While an express trust existed for contracts with early termination provisions, the funds were not segregated.

The court declined to impose a remedial constructive trust, as doing so would improperly upset the priority scheme under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

This motion concerned the priority of new home purchasers' deposits in the bankruptcy of residential real estate developers (Stateview entities).

Tarion Warranty Corporation sought declaratory relief, arguing that the deposits were subject to express or constructive trusts due to unjust enrichment, which would elevate purchasers' claims.

The court dismissed Tarion's motion, finding that purchasers' agreements contained subordination clauses giving priority to secured lenders.

The court also determined that while express trusts existed for some purchasers with early termination provisions, these were not statutory deemed trusts.

Furthermore, there was no unjust enrichment for purchasers without express trusts, as the operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act constituted a juristic reason.

The court declined to impose a remedial constructive trust, emphasizing the high bar for such remedies in insolvency proceedings and the lack of a close causal connection between the deposits and the real property proceeds.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants' non-compliance with disclosure obligations necessitated the motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' claimed hourly rates excessive for the Northwest Region and the docketed hours unreasonable for a non-complex, largely undefended procedural motion.

Applying principles that costs should be fair and reasonable, reflecting parties' expectations, the court awarded the plaintiffs $7,500.00, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, significantly less than sought.

This appeal concerned the appropriate remedy for a party who deliberately accessed the opposing party's privileged information.

The application judge had struck the appellant's Notice of Appearance, barred them from filing evidence, and ordered the Partition Application to proceed undefended.

The appellant argued that this remedy was unpleaded, unproven, and that lesser remedies were available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's decision.

The court found no error in applying the three-part test for unauthorized access to privileged documents, particularly given the appellant's failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice or propose effective alternative remedies.

The applicant, J. Lang Management Inc., brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over the "Jordon Lands" based on a contractual term in an asset management agreement.

This term stipulated that the respondents would grant a mortgage over the Jordon Lands to secure asset management fees if the applicant had a reasonable apprehension of non-payment.

The respondents argued the fees were not owed and that the applicant had provided no valuable services.

The court found that the applicant had raised a triable issue regarding its interest in the land and that granting the CPL was just and equitable.

The court rejected the respondents' proposed alternative security, emphasizing the importance of upholding the specific security terms negotiated in the commercial agreement.

The Applicant brought a motion for judgment, alleging that the Respondent's principal, Paul Halyk, accessed confidential and privileged communications between the Applicant's principal and its legal counsel.

The court found that Halyk accessed privileged material and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, as he did not provide specific details about the extent of his review.

While declining to grant judgment on the Application due to insufficient evidentiary record for the underlying merits, the court ordered the Respondent's Notice of Appearance struck, allowing the Application to proceed as undefended.

The applicant, a chiropractor previously disciplined for professional misconduct, sought an interim stay of an amended College bylaw that disqualified him from running in an upcoming Council election.

The College had recently amended the bylaw to extend the disqualification period for professional misconduct from three to six years, making it effective immediately.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, using the elevated 'strong likelihood of success' standard because the stay would effectively determine the election outcome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that the bylaw would be found unreasonable, retrospective, or passed in bad faith on judicial review.

The Receiver brought a motion for court approval of multiple settlement agreements resolving litigation arising from the receivership of Distinct Infrastructure Group Inc., and for a sealing order over the confidential settlement terms.

The court approved the settlements, finding them to be a fair and reasonable commercial resolution.

The court also granted the sealing order, applying the Sherman Estate test and finding that the public interest in promoting settlements and preserving commercially sensitive information outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Penny J. dated January 28, 2022.

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