Gregory M. Sidlofsky

This is a costs judgment following an interim proceeding where an injunction was granted.

The court received costs submissions from all parties.

However, due to allegations of subsequent events that may impact the appropriate costs award, the judge exercised discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to reserve the costs of the interim proceeding to the trial judge or, with consent, to the judge disposing of an oppression application.

The court emphasized that costs are not appropriately awarded on the interim proceeding until an assessment of evidence and findings of fact considering these subsequent events can be made.

The defendants moved for a stay of an interlocutory injunction order pending the determination of their motion for leave to appeal.

The injunction restrained the defendants from competing against the plaintiff corporation and from using confidential information or soliciting clients.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the motion for leave to appeal was unlikely to succeed, the defendants would not suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated in damages, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The defendants successfully defended a summary judgment motion in a simplified procedure action where the plaintiffs claimed approximately $50,000.

The court dismissed the action and requested written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, citing an unaccepted settlement offer and the plaintiffs' pursuit of the corporate director personally.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs due to the defendants' late production of documents and unnecessary examinations.

The court awarded the defendants $22,500 in costs, applying a hybrid scale that credited the settlement offer but made downward adjustments for both parties' cost-inefficient conduct.

The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, including a former shareholder and several former employees, from competing against the plaintiff company and soliciting its clients and employees.

The court found that the former shareholder breached the restrictive covenants in the unanimous shareholder agreement and his fiduciary duties by orchestrating a plan to use confidential information to divert business to a newly formed competitor.

The court applied the strong prima facie case standard for the first branch of the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs established a strong case, would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted the injunction against the former shareholder and the former employees, enjoining them from using confidential information and competing in association with the former shareholder.

This motion for supplemental reasons arose from a prior trial where neither party was entirely successful.

Pingyuan Zhao sought judgment for outstanding loans from Pingbo Zhao, repayment of improperly retained cash, and an order for compulsory transfer of Pingbo Zhao's shares in the 51.ca Corporations based on a valuation date of August 28, 2010.

The court granted judgment for the loans (net $81,093.90 plus pre-judgment interest) and repayment of cash ($21,799.54 plus pre-judgment interest), finding Pingbo Zhao liable for these amounts.

However, the court denied the request for a compulsory share transfer, concluding that the conditions for a "just and equitable" winding-up order under section 207(1)(b)(iv) of the OBCA were not met, particularly regarding the proposed valuation date and the lack of agreement between the parties on the relief sought.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment claiming the return of alleged overpayments and late penalties for delays in a commercial office renovation project.

The court dismissed the motion and the action, finding that the corporate plaintiff and individual defendant were improperly added as parties.

The court held that the delay penalty clause did not apply to the specific items claimed, and the delays were not the sole fault of the defendant.

The claim for overpayment was also dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish that any payments were made under a mistake of fact or law.

The applicant, Sahara Lawyer Professional Corporation, brought a motion to compel the respondent, Lata Menon, to attend cross-examination on her affidavits.

Menon had acted as outside counsel for Sahara and held referral fees in trust, leading to an application by Sahara for an accounting and payment of funds, and a separate interpleader application by Menon.

The motion to compel cross-examination was opposed by Menon, Subhash Sharma, and Amandeep Kapila, who raised issues of proper service, prematurity due to a dispute over Sahara's share ownership, and counsel authority/conflict of interest.

The court granted Sahara's motion, finding that Virender Sharma, as the sole director, had authority to instruct counsel for Sahara, and that prior court orders did not preclude the cross-examination.

This costs endorsement followed a judgment where two wills were declared invalid, resulting in an intestacy where the plaintiff, Star Sweetnam, inherited the entire estate.

Sweetnam sought substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant estate trustees, Dianne Lesage and Terry Dooley, sought their own costs from the estate.

The court applied the modern "loser pays" principle in estate litigation, finding that the estate trustees acted unreasonably by rejecting two settlement offers from Sweetnam, particularly an early, modest offer.

The court also found Lesage's conduct adversarial and her claimed costs excessive.

Sweetnam's costs were fixed at $311,679.56 (after a 20% reduction for time spent on moot issues).

The court ordered Lesage and Dooley to pay Sweetnam's costs jointly and severally and denied their claims for costs from the estate, preventing Sweetnam from effectively paying the unsuccessful parties' costs.

The applicants sought to declare invalid a meeting of Torah V’Avodah Congregation (TVA) members held on November 13, 2013, which purported to remove existing trustees and close membership, arguing a lack of proper notice.

The court found that the applicants, including the incumbent trustees and Mizrachi Organization of Canada, had a demonstrable interest and were deliberately denied effective notice.

Consequently, the meeting and its resolutions, including the removal of trustees and changes to property title and mortgage, were declared invalid.

The court declined to make a declaration of ownership of the Wilson property, deeming it premature due to unresolved factual disputes regarding membership, trusteeship, and beneficial ownership claims.

The status quo was ordered to be preserved, with applicant trustees continuing administration but restricted from major transactions without court sanction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to vary a Mareva injunction and to compel the responding parties to fund his defence to a contempt motion.

The court found that the moving party had repeatedly failed to disclose his assets as ordered, making it impossible to meet the test for varying the injunction or claiming a need for advance funding.

The court concluded that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying orders and no matter of general importance was raised.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement arises from a case management conference convened to coordinate an action and four related applications stemming from the breakup of a law firm.

The court made several procedural orders, including vacating and rescheduling hearing dates for various motions, converting a motion to written submissions, and setting timelines for affidavits and submissions.

The endorsement also addresses the interpretation of a previous order regarding cross-examinations and outlines the process for scheduling further motions, including one to compel attendance at cross-examinations and another to remove counsel of record.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of two wills executed by her late father shortly after he was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour.

The wills entirely disinherited the plaintiff and her children.

The court found that the testator lacked testamentary capacity when he executed both wills, as his cognitive functions were impaired by the tumour, poorly managed diabetes, and various medications, leading to insane delusions that affected his testamentary dispositions.

The wills were declared invalid.

The plaintiff's alternative claims for undue influence, proprietary estoppel, and dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act were dismissed.

The applicant law firm sought costs of $32,307.82 following its successful appeal of an assessment officer's decision that had ordered it to refund $662,455.98 to the respondent clients.

On appeal, the court had substituted its own determination, ordering the law firm to pay $475,000.

The respondent clients sought partial indemnity costs of $20,000 for the appeal.

The court held that while the law firm was technically successful in setting aside the certificate of assessment, the substantial award against it should not be diluted by awarding costs against the clients.

The court awarded the respondent clients $15,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claims for damages arising from alleged breaches of an agreement of purchase and sale for a home for special care.

The trial judge found that the appellant failed to prove the septic system was defective, rejected her interpretation of a shared driveway agreement, and concluded that a clause regarding the number of residents merged in the deed on closing after she accepted an abatement.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant and respondent are brothers who were involved in a website business directed toward immigrants from mainland China.

The applicant claimed that the business was operated as a partnership in which he held a 40% interest, or alternatively, that he was a 40% shareholder in the corporations owning the business, and sought dissolution or an oppression remedy.

The respondent cross-applied, seeking a declaration that he owned 85% of the shares and an order requiring the applicant to sell his 15% shareholding due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and oppression.

The court found that the applicant was an independent contractor, not a partner or employee, and dismissed his claims for partnership dissolution, wrongful dismissal, and oppression.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-application for a forced buyout of the applicant's shares, finding no breach of fiduciary duty or oppression by the applicant in his capacity as a director.

Both the application and cross-application were largely dismissed, save for some specific monetary accounting.

The plaintiff law firm appealed a Master's decision dismissing its motion to add the defendant's two brothers as defendants and to amend its statement of claim in an action for unpaid legal fees.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the proposed amended pleading failed to articulate a tenable legal claim against the brothers, as it repeatedly alleged that only the existing defendant was responsible for paying the fees.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant law firm appealed a Certificate of Assessment that reduced its legal accounts of nearly $600,000 to nil and ordered a refund of $662,455.98 to the respondent clients.

The Assessment Officer had found the fees to be so grossly excessive as to amount to fraud.

On appeal, the Superior Court held that the Assessment Officer did not exceed her jurisdiction in assessing the accounts or in making circumscribed findings of fraud.

However, the court found an error in principle in reducing the value of the legal services entirely to nil despite the poor outcome for the clients.

Rather than remitting the matter, the court substituted its own determination, ordering the law firm to refund $475,000 inclusive of interest and substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant and respondent, who are sisters, were involved in a long-running dispute over their deceased mother's estate.

The appellant sought to replace the respondent as Estate Trustee to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty.

A previous motion to replace the trustee with the appellant or a named friend had been dismissed.

The appellant brought a new application to appoint an unnamed independent trustee.

The motion judge dismissed the application under Rule 21, finding it was barred by issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the appellant was not entitled to a second attempt to litigate substantially the same issue and that discretionary relief from issue estoppel was not warranted.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a 2002 order that stayed the plaintiffs' first action and awarded costs to the defendants.

The costs submissions were misplaced and only brought to the court's attention years later by a Master.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court found the amounts claimed by the defendants to be excessive.

The court fixed costs at $6,800 for one defendant and $2,500 for the remaining defendants, payable by the plaintiffs.

The applicant, Nasjjec, brought applications to set aside several arbitration awards made by the Arbitrator regarding the dissolution of a partnership that owned a commercial office building.

Nasjjec argued that the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction, failed to treat the parties equally and fairly, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent, Nuyork, brought a cross-application to enforce the awards.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed Nasjjec's applications, finding that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals on questions of law and that the Arbitrator's decisions were reasonable, within his jurisdiction, and procedurally fair.

The court granted Nuyork's application to enforce the arbitral awards and awarded costs to Nuyork on a partial indemnity basis.