Gary Sugar

The defendants moved for security for costs, substitute security, set-off of interlocutory costs, and withdrawal of writs of execution pending an assessment of damages for deceit.

The plaintiffs brought cross-motions including a request to add a vesting order issue to the assessment.

The court dismissed all motions, primarily citing the defendants' significant delay in bringing their motions and the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had been exploiting the intellectual property collateral for years.

The court also found that considering a vesting order was beyond the scope of the assessment ordered by the Court of Appeal.

A law firm (Robins Appleby LLP) obtained a fee judgment against its former client (Todd Family Holdings Inc.) for unpaid legal fees after successfully prosecuting a lawsuit that resulted in a $2.2 million judgment and approximately $1 million in costs.

The client subsequently retained new counsel (GMS Law Professional Corporation) on a contingency fee basis to pursue an appeal of the original judgment.

When the new counsel obtained a costs award, Robins issued garnishment notices to intercept the funds.

The client and new counsel sought a charging order and priority over Robins' charging order, and sought to vacate the garnishment notices.

The motion judge denied all relief.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the client failed to establish the prerequisite for a charging order (inability or unwillingness to pay fees) and that absent exceptional circumstances, a former lawyer may enforce a fee judgment without violating the duty of loyalty owed to a former client.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions regarding the assessment of damages following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had remitted the case for assessment of damages for deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation, setting a base amount and requiring deduction of profits from collateral exploitation.

The moving parties argued for a broader basis of damages (contractual) and a higher initial amount, which the court rejected, affirming the Court of Appeal's specific instructions.

The court provided directions on further examinations for discovery, restricting the examination of one defendant and limiting the plaintiffs' examination, and on the admissibility of evidence regarding profits.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs (as defendants by counterclaim) brought a cross-motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs by counterclaim.

The court granted the Langlois defendants' motion against the corporate plaintiffs, finding good reason to believe they had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion by a self-represented lawyer defendant, finding no evidence of opportunity cost to justify an award of security for costs in his favour.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion, as the counterclaim was largely equivalent to a defence to the main action.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence action on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs, who held a second mortgage, alleged the defendants failed to serve them with a notice of sale when the first mortgage went into default.

The court found that the plaintiffs discovered the damage when they were served with a statement of claim in a related action, which occurred more than two years before they commenced their claim.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed with costs.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for negligence as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs, second mortgagees, alleged the defendants failed to serve them with a notice of sale when the first mortgage went into default.

The court found that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known they suffered damage and were worse off by September 2012, when they were served with a statement of claim in a related action.

As the plaintiffs commenced their action in January 2015, more than two years after discovering the claim, the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant corporation sought orders under the Securities Act and the Business Corporations Act to restrict certain shareholders from voting shares allegedly acquired in breach of early warning reporting requirements, to declare that a shareholder rights plan “flip‑in event” had occurred, and to invalidate a dissident proxy solicitation ahead of an annual general meeting.

The court declined to address the alleged early warning breach because the matter was already the subject of an ongoing Ontario Securities Commission investigation and had previously been withdrawn from related litigation.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court held that the discretionary remedy of prohibiting voting rights would not be appropriate given the circumstances and absence of harm to the market or shareholders.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents acted jointly or in concert in organizing the proxy solicitation or that the circular was misleading under applicable securities and corporate law regulations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, a group of companies owned by Dondeb Inc., sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to enable an orderly liquidation of their assets.

The application was opposed by approximately 75% of the secured creditors, who argued for individual receiverships due to a lack of confidence in the applicants' principal and the burden of CCAA administrative costs.

The court dismissed the CCAA application, finding it unlikely that a successful plan could be developed and approved by the creditors.

Instead, the court issued a Global Receivership Order, which was supported by the opposing creditors, to achieve an orderly liquidation at a lower cost.