Gannon Gault Beaulne

The plaintiff, Westmount-Keele Limited, purchased a hotel from the defendants, Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real Estate Investment Trust and North York (Keele St.) Purchaseco Inc., with an agreement to reimburse Royal Host for up to $2 million in hotel closure costs.

Westmount's obligation was secured by a mortgage, later replaced by $2.2 million paid into court.

The central issue was to determine Royal Host's entitlement from these funds.

The court found Royal Host's initial claim of over $2.1 million in closing costs to be largely unsubstantiated, particularly a fictitious franchise termination fee.

The court determined that Royal Host was entitled to $638,201 plus prejudgment interest at a blended rate of 1.72%, significantly less than claimed, and Westmount was entitled to the return of the remaining funds.

The court also found Royal Host's conduct contributed to the delay in proceedings.

This endorsement addresses a procedural issue arising from the defendant's attempt to seek an order in Family Court to consolidate a civil action with a Family Law Proceeding, despite prior case management orders in the civil action deferring consideration of such a motion.

The court found the defendant's action to be improper and in non-compliance with its orders, directing the defendant to withdraw the consolidation relief sought in the Family Law Proceeding.

The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to case management directions and preventing forum shopping between different court lists.

The plaintiff in a civil action regarding beneficial ownership of corporate properties sought to implement a comprehensive discovery plan.

The defendant argued for limited production tailored to an early mediation and suggested holding the action in abeyance pending a motion in a related family law proceeding.

The case management judge held that the action should not remain in abeyance, emphasizing the need for efficiency and proportionality under Rule 1.04.

A timetable was set for a motion on the discovery plan and subsequent documentary production.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $2 billion class action regarding the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh, the successful defendants sought costs totaling over $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued for no costs, asserting the case was novel and brought in the public interest.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the claims were grounded in established negligence principles and prosecuted aggressively with an expectation of costs.

The court awarded the defendants their claimed costs in full on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim for economic damages.

The appellant argued that the respondents breached their obligation to properly quantify post-closing costs, which impeded the appellant's ability to obtain financing for phase II of a development.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge properly addressed the appellant's submissions and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The plaintiffs, victims of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Loblaws (who sourced garments from the factory) and Bureau Veritas (who conducted social audits).

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21, arguing the claims were governed by Bangladesh law, were statute-barred, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction simpliciter, the claims were governed by Bangladesh law under the lex loci delicti rule and were statute-barred by a one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court found that under both Bangladesh and Ontario law, it was plain and obvious that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, nor was Loblaws vicariously liable or in breach of any fiduciary duty.

The action and the certification motion were dismissed.

The plaintiff construction company sued a First Nation and the federal Crown for over $3.3 million for work performed on reserve lands, seeking a sale of the lands under the Construction Lien Act.

The Crown moved to strike the claim, arguing the Act does not apply to the federal Crown or reserve lands.

The plaintiff conceded this point but sought leave to amend its claim to plead unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The court struck the Construction Lien Act claims but granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding the original facts pleaded supported the alternative restitutionary claims without running afoul of the Limitations Act.

The appellant law firm previously represented the plaintiffs in a personal injury action and obtained a judgment for $206,000 in unpaid legal fees.

A subsequent settlement approval judge, reviewing the settlement for a plaintiff under disability, reduced the appellant's fees to $102,500 in a partial judgment.

The appellant moved under Rule 59.06(2)(c) to vary the partial judgment to accord with the earlier $206,000 judgment.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding Rule 59.06(2)(c) does not authorize a judge to choose between conflicting Superior Court orders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and declined to allow the appellant to amend its motion to seek relief under Rule 37.14 due to unexplained delay and an inadequate evidentiary record.

In a proposed price-fixing class action involving lithium ion batteries, both sides brought refusals motions arising from cross-examinations conducted in advance of certification.

The court held that questions probing how class counsel came to act for the proposed representative plaintiffs, and requests for a retailer plaintiff’s business documents, were not relevant to the certification criteria.

However, questions to the plaintiffs’ expert about whether inclusion of contract phone purchasers complicated pass-through analysis were relevant to testing the expert’s methodology and had to be answered.

Questions to defence witnesses about alleged meetings and documents referenced in a related U.S. proceeding were refused as going to the merits rather than certification.

A consultant sued a corporation for unpaid fees under a month‑to‑month consulting services agreement providing monthly compensation plus expenses.

The defendant argued the contract was frustrated and unenforceable because the consultant could not legally work in Canada without immigration authorization and had failed to secure investment funding.

The court rejected these defences, finding the primary purpose of the contract was to obtain American venture‑capital investment and that the consultant had substantially performed her services from the United States with the defendant’s knowledge and encouragement.

The defendant had waived any requirement that work be performed in Canada and had continued to praise the consultant’s work while failing to pay agreed fees.

Judgment was granted for the outstanding consulting fees with pre‑judgment interest.