Errol Soriano

The plaintiff, a rideshare driver, commenced a proposed class action alleging that Lyft drivers are employees and entitled to protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The defendants moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on the arbitration agreement in their Terms of Service.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement was inaccessible, uncertain, unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and an unlawful contracting out of employment standards.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the arbitration agreement accessible, valid, and enforceable.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proposed class action in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action against her family physician, alleging he failed to obtain informed consent regarding the increased relative risks of blood clots associated with the birth control pill Yaz.

The plaintiff suffered a stroke shortly after taking sample packs of Yaz provided by the physician.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician met the standard of care for disclosure and that the plaintiff would have taken the medication even if fully informed of the statistical risks.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove factual causation, as medical evidence indicated her stroke was cryptogenic and not caused by the medication.

The plaintiffs invested in a land development project in Brampton promoted by the defendants.

The defendants promised to develop the property into a subdivision and deliver serviced lots to the investors.

However, the defendants never developed the property, secretly used project funds to pay for their personal expenses, and ultimately sold the undeveloped land to a third-party developer for over $15.3 million.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the actions, finding that the defendants had engaged in a deliberate pattern of deceptive and self-serving misconduct.

The court imposed a constructive trust and awarded the plaintiffs a pro-rata share of the sale proceeds based on their capital contributions, totaling over $10.6 million, plus $150,000 in punitive damages.

An employer sued a former supervisory employee, his spouse, and related corporations and trusts arising from a long-running undisclosed self-dealing scheme in which the employee caused the employer to retain companies he beneficially owned.

The court found the employee owed fiduciary duties because he had unilateral authority to hire contractors and approve invoices, and held he breached fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of confidence, and deceit by using confidential bid and budget information to direct work to his own entities without disclosure or consent.

The spouse was found liable in unlawful means conspiracy through deceitful conduct and by acting as a sham officer and director using a different name to conceal involvement.

Claims for phantom billing and conversion were dismissed for inadequate pleading and disclosure despite the court's view that the evidentiary record would otherwise have supported them.

The court ordered disgorgement of $10,264,237, punitive damages of $1,000,000, and granted accounting, tracing, and constructive trust relief.

A shareholder oppression trial arising from the breakdown of an informal business relationship involving a used car dealership and related real estate ventures.

The court held there was no binding settlement agreement for the wind-up of the dealership because the relied-on email was at most an agreement to agree and lacked acceptance on essential terms.

The court found oppressive conduct where the controlling parties failed to maintain adequate financial records, charged personal expenses to the corporation, and used a related sole proprietorship as an unjustified intermediary that diverted profits from the corporation.

Damages of $292,000 were awarded for oppression, and the remaining certificate of pending litigation was found to have been improperly registered, with any resulting damages to be determined on reference if necessary.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action against a telecommunications provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds to customers who cancelled their wireless service agreements.

The court denied certification for the national class claim under the Telecommunications Act, finding no viable cause of action.

However, the court granted certification for an Ontario subclass advancing claims under the Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013, finding that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and the common issues, including aggregate and punitive damages, were suitable for a class proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Hydro One Networks on behalf of customers who were allegedly overcharged due to a malfunctioning customer information system (CIS) implemented in 2013.

The plaintiff advanced claims for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment, seeking $100 million in aggregate damages.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues lacked commonality because the alleged systemic negligence produced a multiplicity of errors requiring individual inquiries.

The court also found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as individual issues trials would be inevitable and the Ontario Energy Board's complaint process offered a superior alternative for resolving the billing disputes.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they had oppressed the respondent shareholder in a closely-held family corporation and ordering them to purchase her shares for $4.25 million.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by not directing a trial, by finding oppression despite the respondent's alleged misconduct in a related family dispute, and by improperly mixing and matching expert valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a trial was unnecessary under the Hryniak principles, that the alleged family misconduct was irrelevant to the corporate duties owed, and that the application judge properly chose between competing expert methodologies to determine fair value.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought an action regarding the proceeds from the sale of a property jointly developed by the deceased and the defendant, her former common-law partner.

The defendant relied on a cohabitation agreement that provided property division would be determined solely by legal ownership.

The plaintiff relied on a subsequent oral property development agreement, confirmed in writing by the defendant, that provided for the return of investments and equal sharing of profits.

The court found that neither party understood the cohabitation agreement to apply to their property development activities and set it aside in part under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3,145,682.88 based on the property development agreement.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of private issuers who operate ServiceOntario outlets, alleging that Ontario breached its duty of good faith and acted unreasonably in exercising its unilateral discretion to set their compensation.

The plaintiff argued that the compensation was inadequate and failed to keep pace with expenses.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of dishonesty or bad faith by Ontario.

The court held that the duty of good faith applies to the performance of the contract, not to ensuring a commercially reasonable outcome, and that Ontario's compensation decisions were not commercially unreasonable in any event.

The alternative claim for unjust enrichment was also dismissed as the contract constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The applicant brought an oppression application against her father and brother, alleging they conducted the family business in an oppressive manner.

The applicant was secretly removed as a director of the corporation, denied financial information, and pressured to sell her shares at a dictated price.

The court found the respondents' conduct was abusive, coercive, and unfairly disregarded the applicant's reasonable expectations as a shareholder and director.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the applicant's shares at a fair value of $4.25 million, declining to apply a minority discount.

The respondent successfully sued her mother for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to protect her from sexual abuse by her father during her childhood.

The mother appealed, arguing the action was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches due to the 42-year delay in bringing the claim, and that she was powerless to intervene.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability, finding no acquiescence by the respondent and that the mother failed to establish she was unable to protect her daughter.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding damages, reducing the award for lost income from $100,000 to $20,000 due to a lack of evidentiary foundation for the higher amount.

A cross-appeal regarding trial costs was dismissed.