Emma Williams

This is a costs decision following the court's grant of leave to commence a derivative action under s. 246 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The applicant sought to bring proceedings on behalf of two corporations against their directors for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care relating to excessive compensation.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent directors on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued for no costs or significantly reduced costs, citing divided success and adverse findings regarding the applicant's own conduct.

The court reserved costs to the trial judge, finding that the trial judge would be best positioned to assess costs of the entirety of the proceedings and the parties' conduct.

The applicant sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of two closely held companies (Cen-Ta Real Estate Ltd. and Plum Financial Group Inc.) against the companies' directors for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care.

The applicant alleged that the directors awarded themselves and their personal companies unreasonable and unfair compensation despite the companies' declining revenues and financial losses.

The respondent directors opposed the application, arguing the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory preconditions under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, specifically that the applicant was not acting in good faith and the proposed action was not in the interests of the corporations.

The court granted leave for the derivative action, finding that the applicant satisfied all requirements under the Act, was acting in good faith, and the action was in the interests of the corporations.

The court ordered that the applicant and corporations share legal costs equally.

The plaintiff, Ojohome Canada Ltd. o/a Houseful, sought an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to restore its access to live feed data from the Toronto Region MLS service provided by TRREB.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff did not meet the high threshold for a mandatory order and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The decision discusses the contractual and regulatory context of MLS data access and the requirements for injunctive relief.

The court considered the appropriate costs order following an application in which the applicant, Kristine McGinn, obtained injunctive relief against the respondents, including Stephen Bleeker and Assurance Home Care.

The court determined that costs should be payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the applicant’s request for substantial indemnity costs and her request that costs be awarded against Mr. Bleeker personally.

The court fixed costs at $47,769.39, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid within 30 days.

The applicant, Kristine McGinn, sought an interim injunction to restore her status as an employee, officer, and director of Assurance Home Care Inc., and to refer her claims against the respondents to arbitration.

The respondent, Stephen Bleeker, had unilaterally terminated McGinn's employment and sought to remove her from the board, revoking her access to company resources.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in aid of arbitration and determined the injunction sought was prohibitive.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding Bleeker's authority to terminate McGinn unilaterally, and that McGinn would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as it would diminish the prospect of a shotgun/buy-sell order remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo prior to the alleged breach.

Karson Benjamin, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences including trafficking 27 firearms, 12 overcapacity magazines, 2 selector switches, over half a kilogram of fentanyl, and cocaine.

He was also found with a loaded handgun and proceeds of crime upon arrest.

The Crown sought a 15-year global sentence, while the defence argued for less than 10 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature and quantity of drugs and firearms, the combination of guns and drugs, and Benjamin's integral role, attenuated by his intellectual limitations.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of criminal record, difficult background, early guilty pleas, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Applying principles of proportionality, parity, deterrence, denunciation, protection of the public, rehabilitation, and restraint, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years, with specific counts running concurrently or consecutively, and credited 1458 days for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, G.D., faced historical sexual abuse charges.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to the complainant, his niece, during two telephone conversations, without proving voluntariness under the confessions rule.

The accused argued the complainant was a "person in authority" because he believed she was a parole officer and could initiate criminal proceedings.

The court examined the "person in authority" requirement, particularly in light of R. v. Hodgson, and concluded that for the confessions rule to apply, the recipient of the statement must actually be an agent of the state or capable of influencing the prosecution, in addition to the accused's reasonable belief.

Since the complainant was not acting on behalf of investigating authorities, her status as a private citizen meant the confessions rule did not apply.