Eric Fournie

The plaintiffs claimed trespass and unjust enrichment over an historic laneway due to the defendants' encroachments (loading ramp, sign box, HVAC system).

The defendants challenged the plaintiffs' title, arguing it was flawed or the laneway was public.

The court found the plaintiffs had sufficient possessory title, rejecting the defendants' arguments based on *jus tertii*, defective transfers, and public lane status.

The court found the defendants liable for trespass and unjustly enriched, awarding damages based on a reconstructed encroachment fee.

A mandatory order for removal of encroachments was deemed premature, leaving open options for modification or renewed agreement.

The plaintiff, a former Olympic alpine skier, brought a motion for summary judgment against her former tax lawyer and his firm for professional negligence.

The defendants had advised the plaintiff to participate in an aggressive offshore tax plan to wind up her amateur athletic trust, which the Canada Revenue Agency later deemed a sham.

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of the significant legal risks associated with the plan.

The court held that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care because the duty to warn was clear, and directed that the issue of damages proceed to trial.

The plaintiff, Rockface Capital Advisors Ltd., brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant, Mountain Province Diamonds Inc., seeking US$126,500 plus interest and costs for services rendered under a debt consultant contract.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a contract clause defining the "Success Fee" as 0.25% of the "principal debt" with specific exclusions for accrued interest and capitalized financing fees.

Rockface argued for the full loan facility amount, while Mountain Province contended that certain fees and interest should be deducted.

The court found the contract language clear, supporting Mountain Province's interpretation, and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found it contravened the Human Rights Code and ordered compensation to the respondent, a former employee.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably ignored the employment contract's termination clause and unearned commission in calculating lost wages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's power to order compensation under the Code is not limited by common law wrongful dismissal principles, and the Tribunal reasonably refused to consider the commission issue due to lack of documentation.

The respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it breached the Human Rights Code and awarding the applicant lost wages.

The respondent argued the lost wages exceeded the applicant's entitlement under her employment contract and that the Tribunal failed to credit a negative balance in her commission draw account.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the Code prevails over private employment contracts and that there was insufficient evidence to calculate the applicant's lost commission earnings.

A joint venture partner sought disclosure of detailed payroll and employment records of the other partner’s employees working on a diamond mine project in order to audit joint venture expenditures.

The respondent refused, arguing disclosure would contravene the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) without employee consent.

The court held that while the applicant had a contractual right to audit and the information sought constituted personal information under PIPEDA, disclosure without employee consent would violate the statute absent a statutory exception.

Section 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA does not create a free‑standing jurisdiction for courts to order disclosure; rather, it applies only after an independent court order requiring production exists.

Because no such jurisdictional basis had been invoked, the application was dismissed without prejudice to renewal.

The applicant, a female sales executive, was excluded from a company-sponsored customer appreciation event ("Men's Day") because of her sex.

After she complained to management about the exclusionary nature of the event, her supervisor ceased one-on-one meetings with her, excluded her from other meetings, and her employment was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal found that the exclusion from the event constituted discrimination on the basis of sex under s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code, as it adversely impacted her ability to build client relationships compared to her male peers.

The Tribunal also found that the termination and other exclusionary actions constituted a reprisal under s. 8 of the Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages and $150 for the value of the event.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent tenants $1,212,000 in damages for loss of business due to the wrongful demolition of the leased premises.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that demolition began while the lease was still valid, and raised issues of waiver and issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and did not amount to a palpable and overriding error.

The court also found no merit to the waiver and issue estoppel arguments, noting the parties had agreed on the quantum of damages prior to trial.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning a commercial tenancy dispute and a counterclaim for damages arising from the landlord’s termination of the tenancy and demolition of the building, the successful tenant sought costs exceeding $185,000.

The landlord argued it should instead receive costs or that no costs be awarded, citing the tenant’s failure to pay rent as ordered, allegations of perjury, and late disclosure of evidence.

The court held that the general principle that costs follow the event applied, as none of the landlord’s objections justified departing from that rule.

However, the court found the tenant’s litigation tactics—particularly its refusal to pay rent despite opportunities to resolve the dispute and regain the premises—warranted a reduction in the costs claimed.

Costs were therefore reduced by approximately one‑third.

A commercial landlord‑tenant dispute arose after the landlord halted renovations at nightclub premises and later began demolition while litigation over an alleged lease breach was pending.

Earlier proceedings determined the tenant had not breached the lease and that the landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment.

At this damages trial, the court considered whether the landlord was liable for losses during a seven‑month delay period and whether demolition prior to termination established liability for the remainder of the lease term.

The court found the landlord wrongfully expelled the tenant and commenced demolition before termination, thereby destroying the leased premises.

Damages were awarded for the seven‑month period and for the balance of the lease term, but the court declined to award damages for equipment loss due to insufficient proof and the tenant’s failure to mitigate.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in her factual findings and misdirected herself on the legal principles regarding confidential information by focusing on ownership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The Court also held that the lack of proof of ownership of the confidential information was highly relevant, as there was no evidence the appellants had the legal right to compel its return or were authorized agents of the owner.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment declaring the respondent insured entitled to indemnification under a fidelity insurance bond for losses caused by employee theft.

The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the insured made material misrepresentations in its renewal application regarding its cheque signing controls and failed to disclose its shift to a computerized cheque generating system.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the insured made a material misrepresentation by stating that principals signed all cheques when, in fact, a computerized facsimile signature was used.

The Court also held that the insured breached its general obligation to disclose the significantly enhanced risk created by the new system.

The appellant, a former officer and director of the respondent company, sued for reimbursement of cash advances and the value of shares transferred to consultants.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that an agreement between the parties made repayment of the cash advances conditional on the company raising $10 million in equity financing, which had not occurred.

The trial judge also rejected the unjust enrichment claim regarding the shares.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misinterpreted the agreements, relied on an unpleaded agreement, and erred in the unjust enrichment analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's interpretation of the financing agreements and finding no error in the conclusion that the respondent was not unjustly enriched.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision regarding their status as a 'complainant' under the OBCA and the waiver of a Fraudulent Conveyances Act claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the issue of 'complainant' status should be decided at trial on a full evidentiary record.

The Court also held, based on a concession by the respondent, that the Fraudulent Conveyances Act claim was not waived.

A minority shareholder appealed from a Divisional Court order directing that an oppression application proceed to trial, arguing that a deceased shareholder reasonably expected the corporation to use life insurance proceeds to buy out the holding company's shares on death.

The Court of Appeal held that the application record was sufficient to resolve the matter and that the alleged expectation was inconsistent with the parties' joint investment structure, draft shareholders’ agreements, and evidence of the shareholder compact.

The court dismissed the oppression claim, allowed the corporation's cross-appeal, and held that a related holding company appeal should succeed on the basis that the surviving business associate had ostensible authority to bind the deceased shareholder's holding company.

The court also ordered severance of the jointly held share block so each holding company would own one-half.