Hilary Claire Book

This costs endorsement follows the Court of Appeal’s decision allowing the appellants’ appeal in part.

The court found that the trial judge erred in requiring Mak Mera Limited to repay US$405,000 and in awarding $200,000 in defamation damages to James Bay Resources Limited.

The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal and, after submissions on trial costs, the court awarded the appellants $400,000 in trial costs, payable by James Bay, as a fair and proportionate amount in light of the appeal outcome and the parties’ relative success.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

This decision concerns three related matters: the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. and related companies, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors.

The court finds the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver to be in the public interest and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The decision addresses the statutory and common law bases for receivership, the public interest in protecting investors, and the coordination of proceedings involving multiple stakeholders.

This endorsement addresses three related matters: the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver over the property of the respondents, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors in mortgages brokered and administered by Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court finds the appointment of a receiver to be in the public interest and just and convenient, and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The endorsement also sets out the background of the proceedings, the issues to be determined, and the reasons for the orders made.

This decision concerns two related shareholder applications under section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act involving SpassMed Inc. and its affiliates.

The court reviews the procedural history, including consolidation of the applications, amendments to the relief sought, and the appointment of an interim monitor.

Due to significant disputes of fact and credibility, the court orders that the consolidated application be converted to an action to allow for a full trial process.

This appeal arose from two actions tried together concerning breaches of a license agreement and fiduciary duties related to powder-coating business ventures.

The trial judge found that Robert Langlois breached a License Agreement and fiduciary duties to the "ACS plaintiffs" (7868073 Canada Ltd. et al.), with Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisting.

Profits were disgorged to the ACS plaintiffs, and a separate action by Gary Sugar was dismissed as moot.

The appellants (Gary Sugar and the "Langlois appellants") challenged the trial judge's findings on the License Agreement's validity and termination, the existence and continuation of fiduciary duties, and the misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The ACS plaintiffs cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals and denied leave to cross-appeal costs, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the License Agreement was valid and not terminated, that fiduciary duties continued, and that corporate opportunities were misappropriated.

James Bay Resources Limited, having been awarded damages for breach of contract and defamation in a prior decision, sought costs of $607,759.

The court awarded costs of $309,401.91 inclusive of HST against Mak Mera Limited only, making no costs award against Adewale Olorunsola due to divided success.

The court significantly reduced the requested costs, citing over-lawyering, lack of detail in the bill of costs, the applicant's conduct unnecessarily increasing litigation costs (e.g., late document production, issues with counsel retention leading to trial adjournment), and the disproportionality of the claimed costs to the damages awarded.

The court applied a 30% reduction to account for these factors and specific deductions for certain claimed expenses.

This appeal concerns a share-purchase transaction under a unanimous shareholders' agreement (USA) that went awry.

The appellants, Leeder Automotive Inc. and 2786818 Ontario Inc., sought to compel the respondent, Douglas Warwick, to sell his shares.

The application judge dismissed their application, finding that Leeder had repudiated the share-purchase agreement by failing to comply with the USA's valuation provisions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's finding of repudiation, although it corrected her legal error by clarifying that the share-purchase transaction constituted a standalone contract capable of repudiation, rather than merely an implementation of the USA.

The Court found that Leeder's failures to obtain an independent real estate appraisal and to prepare financial statements in accordance with GAAP, including the improper exclusion of a significant settlement, amounted to fundamental breaches, justifying the respondent's acceptance of repudiation.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion concerning the authenticity of a photocopied letter that the defendants sought to introduce as an exhibit during cross-examination.

The plaintiff objected, arguing insufficient authentication.

The court, after a voir dire, clarified the low evidentiary threshold for admissibility, ruling that the witness's initial statement that the signature "appeared to be his" was sufficient to mark the document as an exhibit.

The ultimate determination of the letter's authenticity and weight was reserved for the trier of fact at the conclusion of the trial, emphasizing that authenticity disputes are best resolved at the case's end.

The plaintiff, James Bay Resources Limited, brought a motion for leave to introduce three previously undisclosed documents at trial, pursuant to Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants opposed the admission.

The court applied the updated discretionary Rule 53.08(1) test, which requires a reasonable explanation for the failure to disclose, no uncompensable prejudice to the opposing party, and no undue delay.

While the explanation of inadvertence was considered weak, the documents were highly relevant, and the defendants had conducted discovery on them without demonstrating actual prejudice or requesting an adjournment.

The court granted leave to admit the documents and awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, Bay-Yorkville Developments Ltd. (BYDL), brought a motion to consolidate its action against Ferguson-Neudorf Glass Inc. (FNG) with a pre-existing main action involving Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2282.

FNG opposed the consolidation and sought to schedule a summary judgment motion on limitations grounds.

The court granted the consolidation, finding that the actions shared common questions of law and fact, arose from the same transactions, and that consolidation would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and promote efficiency.

The court further ruled that FNG's summary judgment motion should be heard only after discoveries were completed, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive record in complex construction litigation.

This is a costs endorsement following motions by three groups of defendants to strike the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim.

The court had previously substantially granted the motion by the 1Plus12 Corporation defendants, dismissed the motions by the Ricci and Karp defendants to strike the statement of claim against them, and struck the plaintiff's affidavit.

This endorsement determines the costs payable between the parties.

The 1Plus12 defendants were awarded $17,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, as they were substantially successful.

The Ricci defendants were awarded $9,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, despite their motion to stay being dismissed, due to the necessity of responding to allegations of criminal conduct that were struck.

No costs were awarded to or against the Karp defendants, as their motion to strike the claim against them was dismissed, although they succeeded in striking the plaintiff's affidavit.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for financial disclosure.

The applicant, Barbara Cohen, sought extensive financial disclosure from the Estate of Sidney Cohen and other parties, which the court found to be an attempt to circumvent a prior bifurcation order by Justice Audet.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion and subsequently awarded costs to the successful respondents and non-parties, including the Estate, Susan Charendoff, Brian Cohen, and several corporate non-parties.

The decision addresses the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behavior, and ensuring justice, while considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the requested amounts.

The appellants, Sandeep Singh and 9660143 Canada Inc., appealed an order dismissing their third-party claim against The Nationwide Groups Ltd. The third-party claim alleged that Nationwide's appraisal undervalued a property, leading to a failed real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Nationwide did not owe the appellants a duty of care.

The court reasoned that there was no special relationship of proximity between Nationwide and the appellants, as Nationwide was retained by the buyer's lender, and the appellants did not plead reliance on Nationwide's appraisal.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a successful application by Sukhvinder Kang (Applicant) against Resham Dhillon (Respondent) for the sale of a property.

Kang sought partial indemnity costs of $24,202.65.

The court found that Dhillon's evidence in the main application was inconsistent and lacked credibility, and that his denial of previously acknowledged facts regarding property ownership unnecessarily increased Kang's litigation costs.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01 and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that the costs sought by Kang were fair and reasonable given the circumstances and Dhillon's conduct.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a property, asserting 50% beneficial ownership despite the respondent holding sole legal title.

The respondent denied beneficial ownership and raised limitation period defenses.

The court found the applicant to be a 50% beneficial owner based on evidence including a UK consent order from divorce proceedings and the respondent's own acknowledgments.

The court dismissed the limitation period defenses, finding the cause of action accrued when the respondent first refused to cooperate in the sale after a lien was discharged.

The court ordered the property's sale and an accounting of rents, but dismissed the applicant's claim to offset amounts owed under the UK consent order, citing lack of jurisdiction and delay.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal arising from a trial judgment concerning oppression and conspiracy claims related to a condominium corporation.

The appellants (original defendants) challenged the trial judge's findings that claims against one defendant were not statute-barred, the award of punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) cross-appealed the prejudgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's decisions on all contested issues, including the application of limitation periods, the appropriateness of punitive damages for egregious conduct, and the discretion in awarding substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest.

The applicant sought entitlement to stock options, arguing constructive dismissal from employment after one year when their role transitioned to a consulting position.

The respondent contended that the transition to a consulting role and subsequent departure were by mutual agreement, thus precluding option entitlement.

The court found no constructive dismissal, determining that the change in role was mutually agreed upon and contemplated by the original employment contract.

The applicant's subsequent departure after the consulting term was also deemed voluntary.

Consequently, the application for stock options was dismissed.

An online retailer of prescription eyewear based in British Columbia appealed an application judge's decision that found it was in breach of Ontario's Regulated Health Professions Act by dispensing prescription eyewear to Ontario customers without involving Ontario-licensed health care providers.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in determining that sufficient constitutional connection existed between the respondent's online sales and Ontario's regulatory scheme.

The court held that while delivery of prescription eyewear falls within the continuum of dispensing activities, the mere delivery of product ordered online and processed in compliance with British Columbia's regulatory regime does not establish sufficient connection to apply Ontario's controlled act provisions to an out-of-province supplier.

The court emphasized that the discrete act of delivery has primarily a commercial aspect rather than a health care one, and that applying Ontario's legislation would effectively grant a monopoly over the importation of prescription eyewear into Ontario.