Heyla Vettyvel

The plaintiff, Maryam Furney, sought an adjournment of the defendants' summary judgment motions to allow her time to retain new counsel after her previous lawyer unexpectedly resigned.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, citing significant delays and the plaintiff's history of changing counsel.

The court granted the adjournment, emphasizing the importance of a litigant feeling they have had their day in court, especially when facing potentially dispositive motions.

The motions were adjourned to a peremptory date in May 2025.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel production of financial documents from the defendant HouseSigma Inc. for the purpose of valuing shares in an oppression claim, arguing that the valuation date could be the date of trial.

HouseSigma Inc. resisted, arguing irrelevance and prejudice, and brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to produce personal and corporate financial documents for wrongful dismissal damages and mitigation.

The court found the HouseSigma documents relevant for valuation and ordered production to the present.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to produce personal and corporate financial records from 2015-2018, finding them relevant to pre-employment income and mitigation of damages.

Horn Ventures International Inc. appealed the dismissal of its application to compel Xylem to sell it property, arguing that a binding agreement for sale was triggered by waiving a condition in an Offer to Lease.

The key issue was whether the "Obligation to Purchase" provision could be triggered before environmental remediation of the property was completed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation that the obligation to purchase arose only after Xylem advised that remediation was complete, and Horn Ventures could only waive the environmental consultant's certificate, not the completion of remediation itself.

The appeal was dismissed, as no reversible error was found in the application judge's contractual interpretation.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale was binding and an order for specific performance.

The commercial lease contained an obligation for the tenant to purchase the property once the landlord completed environmental remediation and provided a consultant's certificate.

The tenant attempted to trigger the purchase by waiving the requirement for the certificate, even though remediation was not complete.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract required the landlord to first advise that remediation was complete before the tenant could waive the certificate.

The court also held that while the provision was not a true condition precedent, it benefited both parties and could not be unilaterally waived by the tenant.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The appellant hotel owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent hotel manager an early termination fee of $1,026,652.44 plus costs.

The owner had terminated a 10-year hotel management agreement after approximately 10 months, claiming cause based on alleged breaches by the manager.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The court rejected the owner's arguments regarding alleged breaches concerning an interim manager's work visa status, the appointment of an unqualified general manager, the manager's failure to timely terminate the general manager, and alleged budget preparation violations.

The court found that the owner had approved the general manager's hiring, that the manager had cured the termination issue within the required 30-day period, and that the owner could not rely on its own refusal to approve the annual plan as grounds for termination for cause.