David Taub

The applicants, limited partners in a real estate development project, brought an application to compel the general partner to proceed to arbitration regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The respondents resisted, arguing that preliminary issues such as corporate authority and the enforceability of a release must be decided by the court first.

The court granted the application, ordering the parties to arbitration and holding that the broad arbitration clause and the competence-competence principle allowed the arbitrator to determine the preliminary issues.

The court also ordered that the sale proceeds remain in trust pending the arbitration.

At a case conference for a certified class action claiming $1.5 billion for understated fuel consumption, both parties had brought summary judgment motions.

Given the complexity of the case, which involves nearly two dozen expert witnesses and significant technical data, the court endorsed the parties' proposal to proceed with a 4-week hybrid trial rather than a 'trial in a box' summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from transferring or encumbering a partnership property without consent or court order.

The dispute arose after the plaintiff was disqualified as a partner for failing to satisfy a cash call, which he alleged was invalid.

The court characterized the requested relief as a mandatory injunction, requiring the plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case regarding the validity of an alleged oral agreement, the invalidity of the cash call, or oppressive conduct.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm, as damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

A case conference was held in a class action proceeding to address procedural matters.

The court approved the agreed-upon Notice Plan for the Notice of Certification.

Additionally, the court set a timetable for the plaintiff's upcoming summary judgment motion, granting the defendants until June 15, 2020, to serve their responding materials due to the complexity of the damages calculation and multijurisdictional analysis required.

The plaintiff sued corporate and individual defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale regarding a retail development.

The individual defendants moved to strike the claim against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b), arguing that as corporate officers, they could not be held personally liable for inducing the corporation to breach its contract without allegations of separate tortious conduct.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding the pleadings lacked necessary particulars of bad faith or separate interests.

However, the court also granted the plaintiff's cross-motion under Rule 26.01 to amend the statement of claim, as there was no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff obtained judgment for the full amount claimed, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale up to the date of its offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter pursuant to Rule 49.10(1).

The defendant argued the claimed costs were excessive and disproportionate.

The court found the time expended was not excessive given the procedural history, including summary judgment motions, but reduced the senior counsel's hourly rate.

Costs were fixed at $60,291.35 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder seeking oppression remedies, sought leave to appeal an order that denied production of financial documents necessary for a business valuation until after liability for oppression was determined.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order as it effectively bifurcated the trial without consent, contrary to Rule 6.1.01.

The court also found the issue of bifurcation in oppression cases to be a matter of general importance warranting appellate guidance.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for a Mareva injunction, the respondents sought their costs.

The court awarded substantial and full indemnity costs to the respondents, totaling over $126,000, finding that the moving parties had made serious, unfounded allegations of fraud and breach of trust, and had engaged in inappropriate conduct by raising unrelated regulatory issues to smear certain respondents.

The plaintiffs were successful at trial, receiving an award of over $2.2 million USD based on findings of active misrepresentations and material non-disclosures by the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs of $960,432.26, while the defendants argued for substantial indemnity costs of $500,000.

The court found that the defendants' continued deceit during the litigation and trial constituted reprehensible conduct justifying an extraordinary award.

The court awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs in the fixed amount of $960,432.26.

The plaintiffs invested $1.25 million USD in the defendants' rehabilitative shoe insert business, Barefoot Science, based on representations that the company owned its intellectual property.

The plaintiffs later discovered the principal defendant secretly owned the patents and had forged documents to protect his reversionary interest.

The court found the defendants liable for deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $2.2 million USD, varied the security agreements to capture the intellectual property, and declared the forged agreements void.

The moving parties, construction lien creditors of the Mady Group of Companies, brought a motion seeking to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings, amend their statements of claim, and obtain a Mareva injunction against several individuals and corporations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to make full and fair disclosure, failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud or breach of trust, and provided no evidence of a risk of dissipation or removal of assets from the jurisdiction.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action based on a lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and abuse of process.

The plaintiffs alleged they released their interest in Ontario lands based on fraudulent misrepresentations regarding real estate and escrow funds in Dubai.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, noting the alleged fraud occurred in Ontario, the contract was governed by Ontario law, and the defendants attorned to the jurisdiction by arguing the merits of the claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Ontario was the appropriate forum and the claim was not an abuse of process.