D. Varah

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent was responsible for funding a deficit that arose on the wind-up of a pension plan for employees at certain warehouses.

The warehouses were previously operated by the applicant's predecessor under a warehousing and transportation agreement with the respondent's predecessor.

The court found that the respondent was contractually liable under the agreement to reimburse the applicant for the deficit as an 'Employee Termination Payment'.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the respondent had subsequently assumed direct responsibility for funding the deficit.

The court rejected the respondent's limitation period and contributory fault defences, granting the declaration.

In a complex fraud action under case management, the parties sought different variations to a previously ordered litigation timetable.

The defendants proposed proceeding with limited examinations for discovery while postponing key examinations until resolution of an appeal concerning access to funds for legal defence.

The plaintiff argued that all discoveries should be delayed to avoid duplicative preparation and increased costs.

The court held that further discovery scheduling was impractical while a pending Divisional Court appeal would determine whether certain defendants could fund their defence.

The judge declined to impose additional discovery deadlines and directed the parties to return for a further case conference within three weeks after the appeal decision, at which point a peremptory trial date might be set.

The defendants sought authorization to release additional funds held in trust to pay legal fees incurred in defending litigation involving multiple defendants.

The funds originated from encumbrances placed on residential properties pursuant to a prior consent order permitting borrowing to finance the legal defence of two defendants.

The court was required to determine the proper allocation of legal fees where work performed by counsel benefitted both those defendants and a co‑defendant who was not entitled to access the encumbered property funds.

Applying principles governing payment of legal fees from assets subject to proprietary injunctions, the court concluded that only part of the joint defence work could properly be charged to the trust funds.

The court ordered that the two defendants were entitled to recover 50% of the total legal fees, taxes, and disbursements from the trust account.

The plaintiff university brought an action against its former Assistant Vice-President and others for deceit, conversion, and conspiracy, alleging a false invoicing scheme and misappropriation of university resources for personal home improvements.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by a full and final release executed upon the employee's termination, and that a property transfer was not a fraudulent conveyance.

The plaintiff moved for a Mareva injunction, an Anton Piller order, and certificates of pending litigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' summary judgment motions, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the scope and validity of the release (due to alleged fraudulent concealment) and the intent behind the property transfer.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for a Mareva injunction, finding insufficient evidence of a risk of asset dissipation, but granted certificates of pending litigation against the two residential properties.