Eric Zablotny

The respondents, Grid Link Corp. et al., moved to stay a prior order requiring them to purchase the applicant Foglia's shares and produce financial documents for valuation, pending their appeal of that order.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding the appeal had low prospects of success, no irreparable harm was proven (as concerns about confidential information misuse were speculative and eventual disclosure was inevitable), and the balance of convenience favored allowing the valuation to proceed without further delay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The court also clarified that the deemed undertaking rule did not apply to the compelled disclosure, imposing a specific protective order for the financial information.

The Court of Appeal quashed an appeal originating from an oppression remedy application, finding that the case management judge's substantive order for share purchase and valuation was appealable only to the Divisional Court under the Business Corporations Act, not the Court of Appeal.

The matter was transferred to the Divisional Court.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from the Plaintiff's motion for particulars and the Defendants' motion to compel cross-examination.

The motion for particulars was resolved on consent, with the Plaintiff ultimately obtaining clarity on the scope of serious allegations made against him in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The court found the Defendants' conduct necessitated the motion for particulars and awarded the Plaintiff $7,500 in costs.

Regarding the cross-examination motion, the court found divided success, noting that while cross-examination occurred, its scope exceeded the court's order and provided limited assistance to the particulars motion.

Consequently, no costs were awarded for the cross-examination motion.

The defendants moved to dismiss or permanently stay the plaintiff's action, alleging a breach of the common law deemed or implied undertaking rule.

They claimed the plaintiff used documents obtained from an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) matter to prepare its statement of claim in the civil action.

The plaintiff argued there was no breach, or alternatively, sought relief from the consequences.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that Ontario's Rule 30.1.01(2) limits the deemed undertaking rule to evidence obtained through discovery processes under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore does not apply to documents obtained from an unrelated proceeding in another forum like the OLRB.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a jointly owned home, which she co-owned with the respondent, her former romantic partner.

The respondent, who continued to reside in the home, opposed the sale, arguing that the applicant had relinquished her interest years prior and that a forced sale would cause him significant hardship.

The court affirmed the applicant's prima facie right to partition and sale under the Partition Act, finding no evidence of malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct on her part.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the property, allowing the respondent a period of time to secure alternate accommodation and seek legal advice regarding potential claims, with the sale proceeds to be held in trust.