Eli S. Lederman

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a settlement of a representative action under Rule 10.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning governance and alleged improprieties in transactions involving the outsourcing and reassumption of real estate asset management by a pension plan.

After extensive litigation, mediation, documentary disclosure, and a neutral fact‑finding process, a report concluded that the transactions were commercially reasonable and that no wrongdoing occurred, although transparency concerns had arisen.

The settlement recognized governance reforms implemented during the litigation and provided for dismissal of the action with reimbursement of the representative plaintiff’s legal costs.

Applying principles analogous to settlement approval under the Class Proceedings Act, the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the represented persons.

The settlement was approved and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction against the vendor of its IT business and several former employees who joined a newly established direct competitor.

The vendor had signed a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement upon the sale of the business.

The court found that the strong prima facie case standard applied to the restrictive covenant in the context of a sale of a business.

The court held that the non-competition clause was reasonable, except for a 10 km geographic extension which was severed using the blue-pencil doctrine.

The court granted the injunction against the vendor and the other defendants, finding they were impressed with fiduciary duties, and ordered the preservation and forensic review of electronic devices due to a strong prima facie case of misappropriation of confidential information.

The plaintiffs, former executives and shareholders of Med-Eng, sued the company and its directors for oppressive conduct regarding a share repurchase.

After Med-Eng was acquired by Allen-Vanguard, the plaintiffs commenced a new action against the original defendants and added defendants (the acquirer, offeree shareholders, and escrow agent), seeking a constructive trust over an escrow fund.

The motions judge struck the new action as an abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable cause of action against the added defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the new action circumvented the rules for amending pleadings and adding parties, and that no cause of action in unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, or resulting trust was pleaded against the added defendants.

Following the disposition of four appeals, the Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the appeal and the underlying proceedings.

The appellant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, with the respondents ordered to pay a portion on a partial indemnity basis and the remainder to be paid from the Fund.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $75,000, and the costs of the underlying Rule 10 and Rule 21 motions at $135,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action.

The trial judge found that the obstetrician negligently failed to obtain informed consent for a mid-forceps delivery, which caused the infant's brachial plexus injury and brain damage.

However, the trial judge concluded that even with proper disclosure, the doctor would have recommended the forceps delivery and the mother would have consented.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual findings on causation were supported by the evidence and did not amount to palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiff, a member of the OMERS pension plan, brought an action on behalf of plan members against the OMERS Board, two corporations, and three former OMERS employees, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt of trust property, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment arising from the outsourcing of real estate management.

The defendants successfully moved to strike several claims under Rule 21.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while some breach of fiduciary duty claims were properly struck, the claims for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment should be allowed to proceed against all defendants.

The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs from the pension fund on a full indemnity basis, as the action was brought to ensure the due administration of the fund and for the benefit of all beneficiaries.

The appellant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's process in establishing a development planning area under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994.

The Minister had instructed consultants that the preservation of an agricultural reserve, which included the appellant's lands, was a 'given'.

The appellant argued this breached the statutory requirements for an investigation and public participation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister has broad policy discretion to set parameters for the investigation and survey, and that public consultation outside those defined contours was not required.

The third party real estate agent appealed a trial judgment awarding the purchasers damages and costs arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The purchasers had settled the main action with the vendor and proceeded against the agent for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and mitigation, noting the purchasers were not obliged to close the transaction given the uncertainty of repair costs and their specific need for a move-in ready home.

However, the Court varied the costs award, recharacterizing the costs of defending the main action as damages and reducing the trial costs of the third party action.

The applicant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's ongoing planning process under the Ontario Planning Development Act, 1994, alleging improper limitations on the investigation stage and lack of meaningful public participation.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that judicial review should generally await the conclusion of administrative proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the planning process was complete.

The respondent Minister brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an application brought by the applicant landowner on short notice.

The parties agreed to the adjournment, but the applicant sought terms to prevent the inclusion of its lands in the Greenbelt area pending the hearing.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the planning process to proceed.

The court also noted that section 14 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act prevents the granting of an injunction against the Crown.

The motion for adjournment was granted without terms.

The appellant vendor agreed to sell commercial land to the respondent purchaser, conditional on obtaining severance approval under the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment granted severance but required the vendor to construct and dedicate a road extension.

The vendor attempted to terminate the agreement, arguing the condition was unreasonable and frustrated the contract.

The purchaser sued for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision granting specific performance, finding that the contract clearly obligated the vendor to obtain necessary consents at its expense, the doctrine of frustration did not apply as the condition was foreseeable, and the property was unique.