5 total
Trial adjourned to allow defendant to respond to plaintiffs' late-served expert reports and conduct further discovery.
The defendant brought a motion to adjourn the pre-trial conference and trial of a motor vehicle accident action.
The plaintiffs had served several expert reports, including a new economic loss report and a biomechanics report, shortly before the deadline and trial date.
The defendant argued that additional time was required to obtain responding expert reports, conduct further defence medical examinations, and pursue documentary discovery from non-parties.
The court granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without the opportunity to fully defend the claims outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay.
The court determined the fair market value of a minority share interest in an insurance brokerage by adjusting the preferred expert's earnings multiple.
This case is a re-hearing on damages following a Divisional Court decision that remitted the matter back to the trial judge for a proper valuation of the plaintiff's 25% share interest in the defendant company, My Insurance Brokerage (MIB), after a breach of contract.
The court assessed conflicting expert evidence on share valuation, utilizing both income/cash flow and market multiple methods.
The plaintiff's expert's opinion was approached with caution due to an undisclosed professional relationship and unrealistic assumptions regarding minority discount and the impact of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.
While generally preferring the defendant's expert's methodology, the court found an error in valuing MIB as a start-up and ordered an upward adjustment to the cash flow multiple.
The final fair market value of the shares was to be determined as the midpoint between the recalculated income/cash flow valuation and the market method valuation.
Payor's income for temporary support fixed at $707,500 by including pre-tax corporate benefits.
The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and interim disbursements.
The core issue was determining the respondent's income, as he claimed an income of $200,000 to $260,000 while the applicant argued it was over $1.4 million based on pre-tax corporate income and benefits.
The court found the respondent's Line 150 income was not the fairest determination and fixed his income at $707,500 for temporary support purposes, applying sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
The court also ordered the respondent to provide a fair market valuation of his business interests, finding them relevant to spousal support despite a marriage contract.
Appeal of summary judgment enforcing share purchase rights following breach of a services agreement dismissed.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment order enforcing the respondent's termination of a Fixed Price Services Agreement and its right to purchase shares in a solar power project due to the appellant's payment default.
The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence and raised new arguments on appeal regarding the respondent's alleged defaults and the mechanics of the share transfer.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the Palmer criteria were not met.
The Court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appellant breached the agreement and that the respondent was entitled to purchase the shares.
A request to stay the judgment pending a counterclaim was also denied.
Appeal allowed in part; liability for fraudulent bankruptcy upheld but damages reduced and co-defendant absolved.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for over $20 million in damages for improperly placing a paving company, Osler, into bankruptcy as part of a fraudulent scheme to deprive the respondents (the Alfano family trusts) of their 87 percent equity interest.
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of liability against Mr. Piersanti, agreeing that he orchestrated a fraudulent scheme, including concocting a fake shareholders' agreement and assigning the company into bankruptcy.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to exclude the appellants' expert witness for lacking independence and acting as an advocate.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the liability finding against Ms. Piersanti, reducing the compensatory damages to $14,391,807 based on adjustments conceded by the respondents' expert at trial, and setting aside orders requiring a related company to pay $2.5 million into court and declaring an interest in certain properties.