David E. Wires

The applicants sought to set aside or vary two interlocutory awards made by an arbitrator, arguing that the arbitrator made findings on unpleaded allegations, resulting in a 'trial by ambush.' The underlying arbitration involved a dispute over share ownership and unpaid dividends, where the arbitrator dismissed the applicants' summary judgment motion based on a limitation period defence.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that the court should not interfere with interlocutory arbitral decisions to avoid piecemeal review.

Furthermore, the court found no procedural unfairness, as the issues had been properly pleaded and the applicants had the opportunity to call reply evidence but declined to do so.

In a receivership proceeding, a corporate director sought leave to control litigation commenced by debtor companies against a secured creditor, arguing that the receiver faced a conflict in pursuing claims against the creditor that initiated the receivership.

The court held that the request constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a prior order directing the receiver to conduct a sales process for the litigation asset.

The court further determined that secured creditors may participate as bidders in a receiver’s sales process, including by way of credit bid, and that such participation is consistent with insolvency principles requiring maximization of value for stakeholders.

Applying analogous bankruptcy authorities, the court approved the receiver’s recommendation to sell the action to the secured creditor through a $1 million credit bid and rejected objections regarding valuation and fairness of the process.

The applicant, a secured creditor, applied to appoint a receiver over the assets of the respondent guarantor following a default on commercial loans.

The respondent cross-applied to lift a stay of proceedings to continue a $100 million damages action against the applicant for alleged breach of a forbearance agreement, and sought to have the proceeds from the sale of the primary debtor's assets paid into court.

The court held that the receivership order did not stay the debtor's action, but refused to order the funds paid into court as the respondent had no proprietary claim to the funds that superseded the applicant's first-ranking security.

The court appointed a receiver over the respondent, finding it just and convenient given the unconditional nature of the guarantee.

A senior logistics executive sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without adequate notice less than three years after recruitment to serve as country manager of Canadian operations.

The court applied the Bardal factors, considering the employee’s age, senior management responsibilities over a large national operation, limited comparable employment opportunities, and evidence of inducement from secure prior employment.

The court also considered the requirement that the employee make a substantial investment in an affiliated company as creating an implied expectation of longer‑term employment.

Despite the short tenure, these factors justified a lengthy notice period.

Reasonable notice was fixed at 14 months and damages were awarded after deducting mitigation earnings and payments already received.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought contribution and indemnity from the defendant in relation to a large American judgment arising from their lottery resale business.

Applying the real and substantial connection test clarified in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court considered whether the defendant carried on business in Ontario.

The court found that the defendant’s indirect relationship with the plaintiffs through an authorized retailer in Prince Edward Island, a single audit visit, and termination of a retailer agreement did not establish that the defendant carried on business in Ontario.

The motion was granted and the action stayed for lack of jurisdiction.

Following dismissal of a motion by several defendants seeking leave to appeal an earlier order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought $6,358.23 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, while the opposing parties argued that $2,800.00 was appropriate.

The court held that the opposing parties’ costs submissions were excessive and lacked a breakdown supporting their proposed amount.

Applying partial indemnity principles and reviewing counsel’s docketed time, the court found a fee of $4,500.00 to be reasonable and fixed total costs accordingly.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that dismissed their motion to stay the Ontario action in favour of proceedings in California.

The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the claim and was the most appropriate forum.

The court also concluded that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.