Gary Luftspring

The insurer for an insolvent corporate defendant and a missing individual defendant brought a motion on short notice to intervene and appoint a litigation guardian.

The plaintiffs, who had been preparing to argue their motion for leave to proceed with a secondary market cause of action under the Securities Act, sought an adjournment due to the late service of the insurer's motion record.

The court adjourned the insurer's motion to allow the plaintiffs to respond, and consequently adjourned the plaintiffs' leave motion, as the outcome of the insurer's motion could significantly alter the defense.

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 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.

Following a trial decision dismissing a claim for unpaid royalties under a patent licence agreement, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $637,000.

The plaintiff accepted entitlement to costs but argued the claim was excessive relative to the scope of the litigation and its own costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles in Boucher, the court assessed factors including the complexity of the dispute, the importance of the issues, the parties’ expectations, and the reasonableness of the hours and disbursements claimed.

The court found the defendant’s claimed hours were very high compared to the nature of the four‑day trial and reduced certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $300,000 for fees and $90,000 for disbursements, plus HST.

The plaintiff, owner of a US patent for an orthodontic bracket, sued the defendant for breach of a Licence Agreement, alleging the defendant failed to pay royalties on new bracket products.

The court applied US patent law to construe the patent claims and determine infringement.

The court found that the accused products did not infringe the patent because they lacked a slidable locking shutter that moved entirely by sliding motion.

As the products were not covered by the patent, they were not subject to the Licence Agreement, and the plaintiff's claims for royalties and aggravated damages were dismissed.

A patent licence dispute arose concerning whether certain orthodontic brackets sold by the defendant were covered by a U.S. patent licensed to the defendant under a royalty agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the products fell within several patent claims and sought unpaid royalties and aggravated damages.

The court conducted a claim construction analysis under U.S. patent law principles and compared the patent claims with the accused products.

It held that although some claim elements were present, the products did not include the required "slidable locking shutter" operating through a sliding motion between open and closed positions.

Because a required claim element was absent, the products did not infringe the patent and were not covered by the licence agreement.

The moving parties sought dismissal of a will challenge brought by a beneficiary alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence in relation to two wills.

The court held that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the claimant knew or ought to have known of the material facts shortly after the testator’s death yet commenced proceedings more than two years later.

The claimant had received substantial benefits under the wills and actively participated in estate administration, including sale of assets and receipt of distributions.

The court further held that the doctrines of estoppel by convention and estoppel by representation independently barred the challenge because the parties had proceeded on the shared assumption that the wills were valid and the estate trustees relied on that assumption in administering the estate.

The will challenge was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement granting him a 10% equity interest in a startup company in exchange for his work.

In the alternative, he claimed oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act arising from his termination and the denial of equity.

The court found that no binding oral contract had been formed, emphasizing the absence of contemporaneous documentation and the lack of objective evidence of mutual intention to create legal relations.

The plaintiff therefore failed to establish offer, acceptance, and enforceable agreement.

The court also rejected the oppression claim, holding that the plaintiff was not a shareholder, officer, or director and had no reasonable expectation of equity.