Farley Cohen

The plaintiffs sought over $16 million in consequential economic losses following a natural gas explosion and fire in the laundry room of their apartment building.

They claimed the explosion caused high vacancy rates, prevented rent increases, and diminished the building's value upon its sale five years later.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the hypothetical losses were caused by the explosion rather than their own business decisions, such as a disruptive elevator modernization project.

The court assessed the actual diminution in value and economic loss at $156,631, which was fully offset by $162,457.81 already paid by the plaintiffs' insurer.

Porter Airlines and Nieuport Aviation disputed the calculation of terminal fees at Billy Bishop Airport under a Licence Agreement.

Porter argued it could pay fees based on a variable daily slot allocation and claimed force majeure due to the COVID-19 pandemic to excuse non-payment.

Nieuport argued fees were based on a fixed, recurring number of daily slots and counterclaimed for unpaid fees.

The court held that the Licence Agreement required payment based on a fixed number of recurring daily slots.

The court also found that the COVID-19 pandemic did not trigger the force majeure clause to excuse Porter's payment obligations.

Porter was ordered to pay over $131 million in damages for unpaid terminal fees, while Nieuport's recourse under a guarantee was limited to specified aircraft.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The applicant in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion for $425,000 in interim disbursements to fund legal fees and expert reports (valuation and income).

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, conceded his ability to pay spousal support but disputed the necessity of the expert fees.

The court found that a valuation report was necessary to test the respondent's claim that his net family property was zero, but an income report was unnecessary given his concession on means.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $200,000 in interim disbursements and awarded $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of a royalty agreement and promissory note following the winding-up of an investment fund.

The court found the defendants breached the royalty agreement by discontinuing payments after the fund's termination, as the agreement provided for a "proportionate continuation" of royalties if a significant amount of unitholders reinvested in successor funds.

However, the court rejected claims of bad faith and the necessity of an Independent Review Committee (IRC) referral for the winding-up decision.

Damages were awarded based on a modified calculation of the proportionate continuation of royalties, significantly less than sought by the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by his former law firm in a family law matter, alleging the firm failed to prepare for trial and demanded an exorbitant additional retainer.

The court found that the applicant, a sophisticated client, had deliberately obstructed trial preparation and orchestrated the breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship to obtain an adjournment.

The court held that no special circumstances existed to justify assessing the accounts and dismissed the application.

The applicant's motion for a sealing order was partially granted to redact identifying information about his children, but otherwise dismissed as the information was already public and solicitor-client privilege was waived by the nature of the allegations.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Ford Motor Company and related entities, alleging false, misleading, or deceptive representations regarding the fuel consumption of 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles.

The claim, for $1.5 billion, was based on violations of the Competition Act and the Consumer Protection Act, asserting that Ford understated fuel consumption by using an outdated 2-Cycle Test instead of the more accurate 5-Cycle Test.

The court certified the action, finding that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

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 applicant sought interim orders under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets, alleging depletion of capital that would impair her equalization and retroactive support claims.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and the relief sought was excessive.

The court found that while reckless depletion was not proven, there was a real risk the applicant would be unable to collect on a significant judgment due to the respondent's financial arrangements and delays.

The court granted a more tailored interim order, preserving specific assets, requiring the registration of a certificate of pending litigation against a cottage, and mandating a $4 million bond or letter of credit, while allowing the respondent to conduct ordinary course business with reporting requirements.

Following an earlier decision requiring certain respondents to purchase the applicant’s shares in a corporation for $4.25 million, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was lower than the judgment amount and sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the extensive litigation history, overlapping issues involving two related corporate interests, and the respondents’ conduct that complicated document production and valuation.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors and recognizing the respondents’ obstructive conduct, the court fixed substantial indemnity costs for fees and taxes and allowed claimed disbursements and expert valuation expenses in full.

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.

Following a motion concerning the defendants’ failure to comply with disclosure and non‑dissipation orders, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Although the plaintiffs did not obtain dismissal of the defence, they succeeded in obtaining strict disclosure terms and relief advancing the litigation.

The court found that the defendants deliberately failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and advanced false allegations that the plaintiffs had stolen business records.

The defendants’ claims of impecuniosity were rejected as unsupported by the evidence.

Substantial indemnity costs were warranted as a sanction for the defendants’ conduct and to denounce false allegations and non‑compliance with court orders.

The applicants sought to set aside a share valuation conducted pursuant to a unanimous shareholders' agreement following the exercise of a put right requiring the purchase of their minority shareholding.

The agreement required the valuator to determine fair market value using generally accepted valuation principles and provided that the valuator's determination would be final and binding.

The court held that judicial intervention is limited to circumstances where the valuator fails to comply with the contractual mandate, not merely where alleged valuation errors occur.

Most complaints raised by the applicants related to matters of professional judgment and therefore did not justify court intervention.

However, the valuator failed to comply with generally accepted valuation standards regarding the analysis of working capital.

Rather than setting aside the entire valuation report, the court ordered a limited independent analysis to determine the appropriate working capital adjustment while leaving the remainder of the valuation intact.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the defendants' bills of costs, making reductions for excessive trial preparation time and for the defendants' failure to properly produce relevant documents before trial, which had necessitated a two-day adjournment.

Total costs of $784,276.99 were awarded to the defendants.