Gavin Christopher Smyth

Following earlier reasons dismissing most applicants’ requests for interim advancement of legal expenses from a corporation, the court addressed the costs of the applications.

The respondent corporation sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $559,000 or alternatively partial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued that costs should remain in the cause of the underlying indemnity issue.

The court held that although the respondent was largely successful, payment of costs should be contingent on the outcome of the trial determining entitlement to indemnity.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs of $25,000 for a related motion and $165,000 for the applications, subject to specific allocations among applicants and exceptions for one successful applicant and another who withdrew participation.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning whether corporate decisions favouring a chief executive officer were protected by the business judgment rule and whether the executive was entitled to severance benefits, the court found that the executive breached fiduciary duties but remained entitled to severance under his employment arrangements, subject to recalculation excluding benefits arising from the breach.

Both sides claimed substantial success and sought significant costs awards, including requests for substantial indemnity costs based on abandoned allegations and trial outcomes.

The court held that the litigation involved two principal issues—fiduciary breach and entitlement to severance—and each party succeeded on one of them.

Because success was effectively divided and no settlement offers were made, the court determined that neither party should recover costs.

The appellants and respondents were involved in a long-standing boundary dispute concerning islands in Lake Huron.

The appellants reached a settlement with one of the defendants and sought to enforce it through consent orders.

The motion judge refused to grant the declarations contemplated by the settlement, finding they could affect the rights of the other defendants in the broader litigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that while the settling parties could resolve issues between themselves, they could not do so in a way that affected the other parties.

The appeal was dismissed, though some costs awards from the application were reduced.

Former directors, officers, and consultants of Look Communications Inc. sought interim advancement of their legal fees to defend against an action brought by Look alleging breach of fiduciary duty regarding bonus and equity cancellation payments.

The court held that s. 124(4) of the CBCA applies to actions brought directly by the corporation, requiring court approval for advancement.

The court found Look established a strong prima facie case of mala fides against the directors and officers, rebutting the presumption of good faith.

Advancement was denied for all applicants except one employee, Dolgonos, whose entitlement arose under an indemnity agreement not subject to s. 124(4).

The appellant appealed an order striking portions of its statement of claim and restricting leave to amend.

On consent, the order was amended to preserve a misrepresentation claim against two defendants.

The Court of Appeal also narrowed a restriction on amending the claim, holding that the appellant was only precluded from pleading facts that would amount to a collateral attack on a prior approval decision, rather than all facts known prior to that decision.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, upholding the motion judge's decisions to strike references to settlement discussions and to refuse leave to amend an oppression claim.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application to require Goldcorp Inc. to obtain shareholder approval for a transaction with Glamis Gold Ltd. The appellant argued the transaction was an 'arrangement' under s. 182 of the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that s. 182 is facilitative, not mandatory, and that Goldcorp did not 'propose' an arrangement.

The court found the transaction was an issuance of shares and a vertical short-form amalgamation exempt from shareholder approval.

The appellants, a real estate agent and broker, appealed a motion judge's decision striking out their statement of claim against the respondents for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation could not succeed, the appellants should be permitted to proceed to trial on the claim that the respondents wrongfully terminated a contract, depriving them of the opportunity to earn a commission.

The Court also held that section 23(a) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act did not bar the claim, as it was for loss of opportunity rather than a direct claim for a commission.

Commercial appeal arising from a manufacturing contract dispute over delayed and deficient mold production for an automotive supply program.

The appellant argued that the respondent's transfer of one mold to another subcontractor constituted accord and satisfaction and challenged the reasonableness of the respondent's mitigation costs.

The court rejected those arguments, holding that there was no agreement discharging the appellant's original obligations and that subcontracting completion was a necessary mitigation step in light of the delivery pressures imposed by the end customer.

The appeal was allowed only in part to correct the accounting by crediting the appellant with the unpaid final one-third contract amount for the transferred mold.

The respondent remained substantially successful and was awarded three-quarters of its appeal costs.