Fabian Suárez-Amaya

The applicant sought to set aside an international arbitral award under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, alleging procedural unfairness, jurisdictional overreach, and public policy violations by the arbitrator.

The respondent cross-applied to recognize and enforce the award.

The court found that the arbitrator conducted a fair hearing, appropriately interpreted the commercial agreements, and crafted a reasonable remedy for the applicant's unauthorized sale of intellectual property.

The court dismissed the set-aside application and granted the application to recognize and enforce the award, ordering the applicant to pay the awarded damages and costs.

The plaintiff, a German-trained lawyer with a PhD in law, sued his former family law counsel for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from their representation in a motion to change a parenting order.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to investigate the facts, warn him of the case's weaknesses and cost risks, and ensure he understood the legal advice.

The defendants represented the plaintiff in a motion to change a 2012 consent order that limited his parenting time with his two sons.

The motion was based on a claimed material change in circumstances—the plaintiff's new employment with reduced travel requirements.

The motion was dismissed by Justice McWatt, who found no material change in circumstances because the plaintiff testified at trial that his new job required international travel, contradicting his affidavit and employer's letter.

The court dismissed the negligence and fiduciary duty claims, finding the defendants met the standard of care, the plaintiff was aware of the risks, and he would have proceeded with the motion regardless of advice.

Chalice Brands Ltd., a vertically integrated cannabis company, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to an urgent liquidity crisis.

The court granted the Initial Order, extending the CCAA stay of proceedings to its non-filing US-based affiliates, which are integral to its operations, and approved a first-ranking Administration Charge.

This cross-border restructuring is coordinated with a planned Oregon receivership, as US federal law precludes bankruptcy protection for cannabis companies.

The decision emphasizes the integrated nature of the business and the necessity of the stay to preserve value and pursue a going-concern sale.

The applicant, Hybrid Financial Ltd., sought a declaration that the buyout formula in a Royalty Agreement with the respondent, Flow Capital Corp., violated the criminal rate of interest provisions under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The court analyzed the Royalty Agreement and determined it was a hybrid financial transaction more akin to an equity investment than a traditional debt or credit facility.

Because the transaction did not constitute a 'credit advanced' and the payments were not 'interest', s. 347 did not apply.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to comply with the buyout valuation process and resume its contractual obligations.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim, arguing the claims lacked particularity, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the oppression claims should have been brought as a derivative action.

The dispute involved a family-owned real estate business.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pleadings provided sufficient particulars and that it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's oppression claims would fail, particularly given the context of a closely-held family corporation where personal and derivative claims may overlap.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend certain paragraphs to provide additional facts.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $15,000, in accordance with the terms of the Occupancy Licence.

The plaintiff property developer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendant purchasers to vacate a condominium townhouse and prevent their re-entry.

The defendants had taken interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, refused to sign extension agreements, made unauthorized alterations to the unit, and engaged in abusive and harassing behaviour toward the plaintiff's staff.

The court granted the mandatory injunction, finding the defendants were trespassers, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, and the plaintiff was suffering irreparable harm to its property rights and reputation.