Herman J. Wilton-Siegel

The appellants appealed a Master's order declaring their construction lien expired for being registered more than 45 days after the last date of work.

The appellants argued that section 11 of the Limitations Act, 2002 extended the time limit for registration due to ongoing mediation efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a construction lien is not a 'claim pursued in court proceedings' under the Limitations Act, and applying section 11 would conflict with the complete code and policy objectives of the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to return a $10,000 deposit to the respondent following a failed business purchase.

The respondent had terminated the transaction after discovering the actual lease rent was higher than represented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the formal Purchase Agreement superseded any prior non-refundable terms and gave the respondent an absolute right to terminate upon reviewing the lease.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that he was unfairly denied an adjournment at trial.

The applicant sought directions regarding the respondent corporation's failure to advance legal fees for his defence against U.S. criminal charges and Canadian extradition proceedings, pursuant to a prior court order and s. 124(2) of the CBCA.

The court held that the test for advancement is whether the expenses were thought prudent and appropriate in the good faith professional judgment of competent counsel, without second-guessing specific tactics.

The court ordered the advancement of most of the claimed legal fees, subject to a discount for duplication of effort, but denied advancement for certain investigator fees due to insufficient evidence of reasonableness.

The respondent's cross-motion seeking to impose prospective conditions and security requirements on future advances was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, former employees of the defendant, sought a determination of their entitlement to monies under a carried interest plan related to a private equity fund.

They argued that their entitlements should be calculated based on their points at the time of each distribution and that the award of additional points after their departure was unduly dilutive and contravened the plan.

The court found that the plan's terms, including subsequent letters agreed to by the plaintiffs, contemplated calculating entitlements based on total points at the end of the plan.

The court also held that the defendant had broad discretion to award points and did not contravene the plan by awarding points after the plaintiffs' departure to reward other participants for their contributions.

A bankrupt sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The trustee and the federal tax authority opposed an absolute discharge and requested a conditional discharge based on multiple instances of non‑disclosure and misconduct during the bankruptcy process.

The court found that statutory circumstances under s. 173(1)(a) and (j) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act were established, including failure to disclose prior insolvency proceedings and the disproportion between assets and liabilities.

The court also identified several additional concerns including undisclosed asset transfers, RRSP withdrawals without disclosure, concealment of funds and equipment, and significant outstanding tax liabilities.

An absolute discharge was therefore unavailable under s. 172(2), and the court granted a conditional discharge requiring payment obligations tied partly to future income.

Motion to determine priority to funds paid into court in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The trustee in bankruptcy sought determination of whether the respondent had a valid lien or secured interest in a trailer component installed before the bankruptcy and also sought reimbursement of prior interpleader costs.

The court rejected the respondent’s claim to a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act but found that the respondent had repossessed the trailer prior to the bankruptcy and therefore held a perfected security interest in the installed component under the Personal Property Security Act.

As a result, the respondent held a secured claim limited to the value of the component, with the remainder of its claim treated as unsecured.

The trustee’s request for reimbursement of costs relating to earlier proceedings was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Master dismissing its appeal from the trustee in bankruptcy's notice of disallowance.

The trustee had disallowed the appellant's claim against the bankrupt on the grounds of an offsetting claim owed by the appellant to the bankrupt.

The appellant argued the debt had been written off and released.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found that the Master reasonably concluded the debt had not been legally released, despite any accounting write-offs.

The appeal was dismissed.

A creditor brought an application for a bankruptcy order alleging acts of bankruptcy and sought a stay of the proceeding pending the debtor’s criminal fraud trial.

The creditor acknowledged that he could not prove the alleged debt without relying on findings from the criminal prosecution.

The court held that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act requires a bona fide allegation of a debt capable of proof at the time a bankruptcy application is commenced.

Applying both that principle and the RJR‑MacDonald stay test, the court found the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the debtor due to reputational and credit harm caused by an outstanding bankruptcy application.

The motion for a stay was denied and the applicant was granted leave to withdraw the bankruptcy application subject to costs submissions.

The applicant beer distributor sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondent brewer from terminating a long-standing licence agreement granting exclusive Canadian distribution rights for certain beer brands.

The respondent issued a termination notice based on the applicant’s failure to meet contractual volume targets after an amendment to the licence agreement terminated automatically when industry regulatory changes did not occur.

The court held that serious issues existed regarding the continued effect of a contractual waiver of termination rights and whether the respondent was required to engage in good faith negotiations before exercising termination rights.

The court also found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm through disruption of its product portfolio, damage to customer relationships, and potential harm to brand equity.

Balancing the parties’ respective harms and favouring preservation of the status quo pending trial, the court granted the interlocutory injunction.

The applicant, a unitholder in an income fund, sought an order requiring the fund's trustees to call a special meeting of unitholders to vote on a proposed transaction involving the restructuring of preference shares and secured notes.

The court found that the proposed transaction was objectively 'materially adverse' to the unitholders because it postponed payments on the secured notes.

Consequently, under the Declaration of Trust, the trustees lacked the authority to vote the fund's common shares in favour of the transaction without unitholder approval.

The court ordered the special meeting of the company to be adjourned pending a unitholder vote.

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment declaring that no binding contract existed for a nationwide roll‑out of a stored value “Tim Card” payment system and that they had not misused confidential information obtained during a pilot program.

The defendants alleged that a binding agreement had been reached or, alternatively, that the plaintiffs breached confidentiality obligations and a duty to negotiate in good faith after abandoning negotiations and conducting an RFP process.

The court held that the evidence showed only an agreement in principle and ongoing negotiations, not a finalized contract, as material terms remained unresolved and the parties’ conduct did not demonstrate a binding commitment.

The court also found no misuse of confidential information, concluding that the operational data from the pilot project belonged to the restaurant chain and did not constitute protectable confidential information of the technology vendor.

However, genuine issues remained regarding whether the plaintiffs breached a contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith.

The applicant, a creditor of the debtor company under CCAA protection, sought an order authorizing it to file a plan of compromise or arrangement and directing meetings of affected creditors to vote on the plan.

The proposed plan did not include a shareholder vote.

The debtor opposed the application, arguing the plan was not in the best interests of stakeholders and improperly excluded shareholders.

The court found that because the debtor's shares had potential equity value depending on the outcome of pending litigation, and the proposed plan would radically alter the economic prospects of the shares, a shareholder vote was required.

The application to order a meeting of creditors without a shareholder vote was denied.

The appellant, a city councilor, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for defamation arising from an email exchange with the respondent, a community activist.

The trial judge had found that the appellant's email was defamatory and that the defence of qualified privilege was defeated by malice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to state and apply the correct legal tests for qualified privilege and malice.

Specifically, the trial judge erred by conflating the objective and subjective standards for honest belief and by failing to determine whether an improper purpose was the appellant's dominant motive.

The defendants brought a partial summary judgment motion arguing that claims seeking enforcement in Ontario of German “Notarized Debt Acknowledgments” were barred by limitation periods.

The court characterized the acknowledgments as foreign agreements creating unilateral covenants permitting enforcement without a prior German court judgment, rather than foreign judgments.

Applying conflict-of-laws principles, the court held that German limitation law governed.

Under the German Civil Code, enforceable documents such as the acknowledgments are subject to a 30‑year limitation period.

As a result, the claims were not statute‑barred and the motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of a Master's order discharging a certificate of pending litigation over a development property pending appeal.

Applying the three‑part test for a stay, the court found the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm because the property was a commercial investment and any loss could be compensated through damages.

The court also held the balance of convenience favoured allowing the pending sale to a third‑party purchaser to proceed, noting the applicant’s weak claim to beneficial ownership and the uncertainty surrounding an alternative offer arranged by the applicant.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Eleven children's aid societies brought an application for judicial review challenging the Ministry of Children and Youth Services' decisions regarding their funding allocations for the 2009/2010 fiscal year.

The applicants argued that the Minister breached statutory processes, fettered her discretion by mechanically applying a funding model, exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias, and improperly delegated review authority to Regional Directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a core policy function not subject to judicial review absent bad faith or improper purpose.

The court also found that the delegation of authority was valid and that there was no apprehension of bias or fettering of discretion.

The applicant sought costs of $90,180 plus disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis against both the Ministry of Natural Resources and Mr. Duncan following a successful application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs against the Ministry, finding the real dispute was between the applicant and Mr. Duncan.

The court also rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, noting Mr. Duncan's conduct was not harsh or vexatious.

After reducing the claimed amount for excessive fees, including those of a retired lawyer acting as a witness, the court fixed costs at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements payable by Mr. Duncan.

The moving party, a mining exploration company, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction that restrained it from engaging in mineral exploration activities on lands subject to asserted treaty and Aboriginal rights of the responding First Nation.

The motion judge had granted the injunction based on the Crown's failure to consult and accommodate, finding that the operational aspects of the duty to consult had been delegated to the mining company.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the company had a delegated duty to consult and that an injunction could be issued against a third party based on the Crown's failure to consult.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of four car dealerships in Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board had ruled that for the purposes of equitable assessment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, similar lands in the 'vicinity' could not exceed the boundaries of the municipality.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the legislature did not intend to limit 'vicinity' to municipal boundaries in the Assessment Act, as evidenced by explicit municipal boundary limitations placed on the term in other statutes like the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The matter was remitted to the Board for redetermination.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of two interim decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had rejected the City's request for early dismissal of a human rights application challenging municipal zoning by-laws regarding group homes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decision to defer the jurisdictional challenge until a full evidentiary record was established was reasonable.

The Court also held that the application for judicial review was premature, as there were no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention in the Tribunal's interim procedural decisions.