Wayne Rudson

The plaintiff, Sunsource Grids Inc., brought an action against the University of Windsor for $40 million in damages, alleging breach of a research agreement, misrepresentation, and intentional interference with economic relations regarding the development of a solar PV switch technology.

The University counterclaimed for breach of contract due to the plaintiff's failure to provide required in-kind contributions.

Following a 50-day trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that the University did not breach the agreement or act in bad faith.

The court held that the plaintiff's failure to supply necessary components was a condition precedent that excused the University's inability to deliver a hardware prototype.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claimed damages for loss of future profits were too remote, excluded by the contract's consequential damages clause, and based on a technology that was not commercially viable.

The University's counterclaim was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $21,800 for its breach of contract.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant mother struggled with alcohol abuse, leading to the respondent father becoming the primary caregiver for their three children.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, with the children residing primarily with the father and the mother having parenting time 5 out of 14 days subject to alcohol monitoring.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including valuing the father's security business on the date of marriage, determining the parties' incomes for support purposes, and addressing claims of unjust enrichment and resulting trust.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $882,115.16 and retroactive spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay retroactive section 7 expenses.

The parties separated after eight years of marriage and have one child with Type 1 diabetes.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief regarding parenting, support, and the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making and a graduated parenting schedule leading to equal time.

For support purposes, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income at $1,192,666 based on a three-year average, excluding certain non-recurring amounts.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and an advance of $120,000 to the applicant for interim disbursements.

The moving party wife sought interim costs and disbursements of $500,000 to fund her family law and oppression remedy claims against the responding party husband, who controlled the family's closely-held corporations.

She also sought temporary spousal support and an order compelling the husband to answer undertakings and refusals from his questioning.

The court awarded $250,000 in interim costs under the OBCA as an advance against her shareholdings, finding her oppression claim had sufficient merit and she lacked liquid resources.

The court also ordered the husband to pay $3,000 per month in temporary spousal support to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, and compelled him to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The appellant corporation appealed a judgment fixing the fair value of its shares at 30.4 cents per share under s. 185 of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by valuing the corporation on a going concern basis rather than a liquidation basis, by adjusting the cash flow forecast based on a three-month delay for alternative refinancing, and by failing to account for dilution from convertible debt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge's valuation involved fact-specific judgment calls that were entitled to deference and revealed no errors of law.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief following their separation.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding that the applicant's proposed increase in overnight visits was not in the young children's best interests at this time.

The court declined to order a s. 30 assessment due to potential delay.

For interim support, the applicant's income was set at $300,000 based on his expert's report, and the respondent's imputed income was set at $25,000.

The respondent's request for a $108,000 interim disbursement was denied; instead, the court ordered the parties to secure a line of credit against the matrimonial home to fund litigation and private school expenses.

The respondent was granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2010 Separation Agreement, alleging the respondent failed to disclose significant corporate assets and that she signed under duress.

Alternatively, she sought to set aside the support provisions.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement but requested extensive variations to support, including retroactive termination of child support and imputation of income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding the non-disclosure was not significant in the context of the negotiations and there was no duress.

The court also dismissed most of the respondent's variation requests due to a lack of a material change in circumstances, but granted the termination of child support for the two adult children who no longer lived with the applicant.

The applicants, minority shareholders, commenced an oppression application against the respondents, the majority shareholders and the corporation.

The parties consented to a trial to determine the value of the applicants' shares, which the respondents would purchase.

The court resolved several methodological disputes between the parties' expert valuators regarding maintainable earnings, capitalization rates, and redundant assets.

Crucially, the court held that no minority discount should be applied to the valuation of the applicants' shares, as the purchase was a compulsory consolidation of the majority's position rather than an open market transaction.

The appellant sued her former family law lawyer for negligence, alleging he failed to adequately protect her equalization claim against her husband, who was a known flight risk.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while the lawyer breached the standard of care in some respects, his recommendation to settle was not an 'egregious error' and his delays did not cause the appellant's loss.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the 'egregious error' test instead of the standard of reasonableness, and by using a segmented time grid analysis that failed to assess the lawyer's overall failure to advance the case to trial.