Geetha Philipupillai

The court considered cross-applications between Michelle Goldstein Zaldin and Seymour Goldstein regarding the enforcement of a shotgun clause in a shareholders’ agreement for their jointly owned insurance and investment businesses.

The court found that a binding agreement was reached for Ms. Zaldin to purchase Mr. Goldstein’s shares, and that Mr. Goldstein’s failure to obtain necessary regulatory approvals constituted a breach that prevented closing.

The court granted specific performance in favour of Ms. Zaldin, declined to imply additional terms into the agreement, and awarded her costs.

The court considered cross-applications between Michelle Goldstein Zaldin and Seymour Goldstein regarding the enforcement of a shotgun clause in a shareholders’ agreement for their jointly owned insurance and investment businesses.

The court found that a binding agreement was reached for Ms. Zaldin to purchase Mr. Goldstein’s shares, and that Mr. Goldstein’s failure to obtain necessary regulatory approvals constituted a breach that prevented closing.

The court granted specific performance in favour of Ms. Zaldin, declined to imply additional terms into the agreement, and awarded her costs.

The plaintiff brought a certified class proceeding against the Province of Ontario regarding the Centre of Forensic Sciences' (CFS) retention of DNA profiles obtained from voluntarily provided reference samples.

The class members had signed consent forms stating that electronic data related to their samples would be permanently removed if they were excluded as a match to a crime scene.

The court found that the CFS's practice of merely anonymizing, rather than permanently removing, the DNA profiles vitiated the class members' consent.

This resulted in an unreasonable search and continued seizure in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court awarded aggregate Charter damages of $1,000 per class member ($7,267,000 total) for vindication and deterrence, but dismissed the claims for intrusion upon seclusion and punitive damages, finding the CFS acted in good faith.

The plaintiff, Jean-Marie Dixon, sought to conduct Rule 39.03 examinations of three witnesses (Registrar of HRTO, former ALOC president, and Crown counsel) in preparation for a jurisdiction motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (HMK).

HMK, the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) each moved to quash the respective summonses.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's preliminary motion to strike portions of HMK's material.

The court granted all motions to quash, finding that the evidence sought was not relevant to the jurisdiction motion, was protected by statutory privilege (for HRTO Registrar) or solicitor-client privilege (for Crown counsel), or constituted an abuse of process as a fishing expedition for the underlying claim's merits.

The plaintiff and third-party father sued the defendant sons for repayment of alleged oral loans totaling $248,000 used to purchase a condominium.

The sons counterclaimed for unpaid wages, alleging the payments were actually 'banked' wages from their employment at the father's companies, and sought punitive damages for the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the loan claims, finding the payments were indeed banked wages.

The court allowed the sons' counterclaim for unpaid wages, finding the father personally liable as a common employer.

The court also awarded $75,000 in punitive damages to each son due to the father's reprehensible conduct, including withholding wages, spoliation of employment records, and maintaining a false narrative throughout the litigation.

This appeal concerned a proposed class action by inmates and their families against Bell Canada and the Ontario government regarding allegedly unreasonable and unconscionable collect call rates from correctional facilities.

The motion judge had dismissed claims for an ultra vires tax and a Telecommunications Act breach, and permanently stayed other claims (unjust enrichment, consumer protection, unconscionable contracts, breach of fiduciary duty), deferring to the CRTC's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the ultra vires tax claim, finding the commissions paid to Ontario were proprietary/contractual charges, not taxes.

However, the Court substituted the permanent stay with a temporary stay for the remaining claims.

This was to allow the CRTC to first determine whether it had forborne from regulating these specific rates and, if not, to adjudicate their reasonableness, ensuring access to justice for the appellants if the CRTC declined jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Phong Lam, sued defendants Ken Neumann and Laura Chehadi Jaja for $15 million, alleging failures in union representation and wrongful termination related to his employment.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the plaintiff's action without leave to amend, finding that the claims fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, that an identical proceeding was pending before the HRTO, and that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the private defendants under the Charter or Criminal Code, nor personal liability for an employee acting within the scope of employment.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of prisoners and their families, alleging that Bell Canada and Ontario charged unconscionable rates for collect calls from provincial correctional facilities.

The plaintiffs sought certification, while the defendants brought cross-motions to stay the action, arguing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice struck the plaintiffs' claims for an ultra vires tax and breach of the Telecommunications Act, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court permanently stayed the remaining claims, concluding that the pith and substance of the dispute concerned telecommunications rates, which fall squarely within the specialized jurisdiction and remedial authority of the CRTC.

The plaintiff, EllisDon Residential Inc., sought an injunction against Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd. to resume work and against Defendant Unions for inducing breach of contract and interfering with economic relations.

The defendants argued the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court applied the Weber test, finding the essential character of the dispute related to labour relations and the interpretation of collective agreements, falling within the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the injunction motion and stayed the action, deferring to the OLRB.

The plaintiff construction manager sought an urgent hearing for an injunction to prevent the defendant union from allegedly intimidating a masonry contractor's employees into refusing to work.

The developer, Westbank, sought and was granted intervenor status.

The court declined to schedule the injunction motion on an urgent basis, finding that the delay in bringing the action was strategic and the alleged urgency was self-induced.

The parties were directed to schedule a regular motion date.

In a proposed class action regarding the rates charged for collect calls made by prisoners in Ontario correctional facilities, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by an employee of the defendant telecommunications company.

The plaintiffs argued the affiant was improperly giving expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the affiant was providing factual evidence regarding the regulatory framework and the operation of the telephone system, not expert opinion.

Following a successful motion for an urgent interlocutory injunction against picketing union members, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $110,000.

The defendants argued for no or nominal costs, citing labour injunction jurisprudence.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,000 plus disbursements, finding that while the picketers' conduct was aggressive and crossed the line, it did not warrant the judicial disapproval reflected in substantial indemnity costs.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed the "Student Choice Initiative" framework, which mandated an opt-out system for non-essential student ancillary fees at Ontario colleges and universities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the framework was unlawful.

For colleges, the framework conflicted with section 7 of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, which protects student governing bodies' normal activities.

For universities, the framework interfered with their statutory self-governance and institutional autonomy, a fundamental principle implicit in their establishing Acts.

The court clarified that the Minister's action was an exercise of executive authority, not prerogative power, and must yield to conflicting legislation.

The applicants brought a motion to enforce an interim settlement agreement with the City of Toronto regarding physical distancing standards in the city's shelter system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The City had asserted compliance with the agreement on June 15, 2020, which would trigger the termination of the agreement.

The court found that the City breached the agreement by asserting compliance when it had not used its 'best efforts' to achieve the required physical distancing standards across all sites.

The court ordered the City to continue its pre-compliance reporting obligations until it fully met its obligations under the agreement.

The plaintiff, Bank-Strox Renovation Inc., sought an urgent interim and interlocutory injunction against Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Derek Melo, and other unidentified individuals, to restrain unlawful picketing activities during a legal strike.

The court found that the plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance, which proved unsuccessful in preventing ongoing obstruction, trespass, threats, and physical altercations at multiple job sites.

The court determined there was a serious issue to be tried and a reasonable likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and goodwill.

Balancing the constitutional right to picket with the employer's right to carry on business, the court granted an interlocutory injunction against the Union and its members, agents, and representatives, but denied it against Derek Melo personally due to insufficient evidence.

The injunction included terms for a brief vehicle delay and a come-back provision for future amendments.

The applicants brought a refusals motion to compel answers and document production from the City of Toronto and Ontario in a Charter application challenging shelter standards during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion sought to enforce an Interim Settlement Agreement regarding physical distancing and bed capacity in shelters.

The court granted the motion in part, finding many of the City's refusals improper regarding system-wide compliance data for the May 15-June 15, 2020 period, but upheld other refusals based on proportionality, particularly concerning the Central Intake service, daily capacity data, and information outside the specified period.

This proposed class action concerned the alleged retention of DNA profiles by the Province of Ontario after individuals voluntarily provided samples for forensic DNA analysis that did not match any samples obtained under the Criminal Code.

The plaintiff moved for certification of the action, alleging breach of the Criminal Code, violation of section 8 of the Charter, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The defendant consented to certification shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding and addressed two outstanding issues: costs of the certification motion and the temporal limit of the proposed class.

The court adopted a hybrid approach for costs, ordering half payable forthwith and half in the cause, and fixed the quantum at $124,504.38.

The court also ordered that the temporal limit of the class definition be "without prejudice to the plaintiff bringing a future motion within this proceeding to certify an amended class" to protect future class members.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, commenced a civil action against her employer (the Crown) and her union (AMAPCEO) alleging discrimination and harassment arising from her employment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitration or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) due to the collective agreement.

The court granted the motion, holding that the essential character of the dispute arose entirely from the employment relationship governed by the collective agreement, and the plaintiff's claims did not present an independent civil wrong to "piggyback" human rights claims in court.

The court affirmed that the HRTO remains an available forum for the plaintiff's human rights complaints.

The appellant, appearing self-represented, failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal on April 17, 2019.

Despite attempts by counsel for the respondents and the court to contact the appellant at the phone number he had provided, he could not be reached.

The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving defendants, a law firm and one of its lawyers, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff had sued the lawyers who represented the opposing party in a previous proceeding, seeking to recover costs awarded against him in that proceeding.

The court found that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as the lawyers owed no duty of care to the plaintiff and the claim was a collateral attack on previous costs orders.

The motion was granted, the claim was struck without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed as an abuse of process.