Darryl T. Mann

The defendant brought a successful motion to stay a 2019 action as an abuse of process and to consolidate it with a 2017 action.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing a Rule 49 offer, the plaintiff's lack of good faith, and uncooperative conduct.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding it appropriate to clear the costs slate and apply normal principles.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,000.

The minority shareholder of a family company commenced an action for an oppression remedy and asserted a derivative claim without obtaining leave.

The minority shareholder's holding company later commenced an action in debt against the family company.

The defendant in the first action moved to stay the second action as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, instead ordering the two actions consolidated.

However, the court struck the derivative claim without leave to amend, finding it misconceived, ill-advised, and not brought in good faith.

In ongoing litigation concerning a family marina business under receivership, the court considered a motion by the court‑appointed receiver seeking approval of its interim reports, payment of interim receiver’s fees, and approval of legal fees incurred by its counsel.

The defendants opposed the motion, alleging bias by the receiver and arguing that the original receivership order permitted payment only from the proceeds of a future sale of the marina.

The court found no evidence of bias or improper conduct by the receiver and held that a material change in circumstances—specifically opposition to the marina’s sale—permitted variation of the prior order to allow interim payment.

The court approved the receiver’s interim reports and authorized payment of the receiver’s fees and legal fees as fair and reasonable, but declined to grant the receiver a first charge over the marina property.

The court also ordered that $17,000 be released to the estate once a properly appointed estate trustee or administrator complied with Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Addendum reasons addressing the applicable evidentiary protections for the examination of a witness pursuant to a letter of request issued in connection with foreign antitrust litigation in the United States.

The applicant argued that the Canada Evidence Act should govern the examination because the foreign order contemplated evidence taken in accordance with Canadian law.

The respondent submitted that protections under the Ontario Evidence Act should also apply.

The court held that both the Canada Evidence Act and the Ontario Evidence Act, together with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, apply, ensuring the witness benefits from all available statutory protections against self-incrimination.