Igor Ellyn

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to correct a misnomer in its name, changing it from 'Urban Life Residential, In Trust' to 'Urban Life Residential Inc., In Trust', and to extend the time to file a trial record.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the action, security for costs, and to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend, finding it was a case of misnomer and the defendant was not misled.

The court dismissed the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the identity of the purchaser and the validity of the trust.

The requests for security for costs and discharging the CPL were also dismissed.

The appellant, Ellyn Law, appealed a motion judge's order that its retainer agreement with the respondents, Alexander L. Bimman and 2182474 Ontario Inc., was valid and capped fees at 30% of recovery, disallowing certain additional fees and disbursements.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and enforceability of the retainer agreement, clarifying that while lawyers can challenge their own agreements under s. 24 of the Solicitors Act, there is a presumption of fairness and reasonableness that requires exceptional circumstances to rebut.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in disallowing a disbursement for an external law firm (Chitiz Pathak LLP) as it was reasonably necessary to resolve the underlying action.

The applicant brought a consent motion to transfer a commercial lease application from Brampton to Toronto to be heard with a companion application.

The sole reason for the requested transfer was to secure an earlier hearing date, as the parties were dissatisfied with the dates available in Brampton.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the desire for an earlier hearing date does not justify transferring a proceeding to a jurisdiction with no connection to the matter, as doing so would inappropriately use other regions to arbitrage court schedules.

The parties agreed not to seek any costs of the appeal motions or the appeals.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement reflecting this agreement, with no costs awarded.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a Superior Court judgment concerning an oppression remedy claim.

The appellants (defendants) challenged the trial judge's valuation of shares, award of equitable damages, refusal to admit fresh evidence, and refusal to reconsider a Rule 59 motion.

The cross-appellants (plaintiffs) challenged the trial judge's findings on fiduciary duty, the 2012 share purchase agreement, quantum of equitable damages (interest), punitive damages, and transaction structure for share repurchase.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's decisions on all substantive issues, including the valuation, equitable damages, and the refusal to admit fresh evidence or reconsider motions.

Both parties' requests for leave to appeal costs were also refused.

Following the dismissal of summary judgment motions, a case conference was held to address trial scheduling.

The parties requested an exemption from mandatory mediation, agreeing it would have no value given prior unsuccessful resolution efforts.

The court granted the exemption pursuant to Rule 24.1.05, finding it would not reduce cost or delay.

A 5 to 7-day trial was scheduled for September 20, 2021.

The plaintiffs moved for directions regarding motions for leave to file fresh evidence, seeking a sequencing protocol to determine whether the defendants' fresh evidence was protected by litigation privilege before disclosing their own fresh evidence.

The motion judge declined to order the proposed protocol, directing the parties to perfect their appeals and schedule an appeal management conference to determine the procedure.

The motion judge also granted the plaintiffs leave to file an over-length 54-page factum, but ordered them to pay $2,000 in costs for failing to seek permission beforehand.

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully established oppression and was awarded approximately $4.2 million for her shares and termination damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $1.4 million, while the defendants argued for significant reductions based on the plaintiff's lack of success on several discrete issues.

The court rejected a strict distributive costs approach but reduced the plaintiff's fees by 20% to reflect unsuccessful claims, and made further deductions for post-trial motions and excessive counsel.

The plaintiff was awarded $608,960 in fees and $194,933.33 in disbursements.

This addendum to a judgment determined the transaction structure for a court-ordered share purchase as an oppression remedy.

The individual plaintiff, Ms. Murray, a 9.1% shareholder in Pier 21, had been found to be oppressed, and the defendants were ordered to purchase her shares for $39.3 million.

Ms. Murray held her shares through a holding company (2327342 Ontario Inc.) and sought to minimize her tax liability by having the individual defendant, Mr. Star, or his holding company, purchase the shares of her holding company (Option One).

Mr. Star argued for Pier 21 to repurchase its shares from Ms. Murray's holding company for cancellation (Option Two).

The court found that Option One was not in accord with Ms. Murray's reasonable expectations, considering her prior share sales in 2012 where Pier 21 repurchased shares from her holding company for cancellation.

The court also noted that Option One would impose potential unknown liabilities and significant advisory costs on the defendants, risks not present in Option Two.

The court ordered the share purchase to proceed under Option Two, requiring Pier 21 to repurchase its shares from Ms. Murray's holding company for cancellation.

Following a trial where the defendants were ordered to repurchase the plaintiff's shares, the plaintiffs sought directions on the transaction structure to ensure tax efficiency.

The defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction as the issue was not pleaded and the court was functus officio.

The court held it had jurisdiction under s. 241(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, noting the issue was raised during trial and fell within the broad remedial powers for oppression.

The court established a process for filing further evidence to resolve the transaction structure.

Following a trial under the oppression remedy, both parties brought motions under Rule 59.06(1) to correct alleged errors in the court's reasons.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to remove references to a personal relationship and their claim of an arithmetic error in the fair value calculation.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to correct arithmetic errors, increasing the fair value of the corporation by $0.2 million and the equitable compensation awarded to $605,579.

The plaintiffs' request for compound interest was dismissed as it was not pleaded and lacked an evidentiary foundation.

DEI Films Ltd. sued Rakesh Tiwari and 3885275 Canada Inc. for defamation.

The defendants successfully brought anti-SLAPP motions, dismissing DEI Films' action.

This decision addresses the defendants' requests for full indemnity costs.

The court granted full indemnity costs to both defendants against DEI Films Ltd., finding no merit in DEI Films' arguments for reduced or no costs.

The court declined to hold non-parties Brij Mohan Trikah and Sital Panesar jointly and severally liable for costs, as the defamation claim was primarily by the corporate entity and had little to do with their personal reputations.

DEI Films Ltd. sued Rakesh Tiwari and 3885275 Canada Inc. for defamation, claiming $1.5 million, arising from a radio broadcast discussing a proposed boycott of a concert.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the defendants' motions, finding that the broadcast related to a matter of public interest.

DEI Films failed to demonstrate that its action had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defense (such as no defamatory statement, justification, or fair comment), or that the harm suffered was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed.

Appeal from a trial judgment concerning a dispute between a former unmarried couple over property rights in development properties.

The trial judge found that a property development agreement (PDA) existed between the parties despite a cohabitation agreement containing broad waivers of property rights.

The trial judge set aside the cohabitation agreement as it applied to the development properties under section 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act, finding that neither party understood the consequences of the agreement regarding their property development venture.

The trial judge awarded the respondent $3,325,000 plus interest and costs.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: the trial judge erred in setting aside the agreement only as to development properties; in not setting aside the entire agreement including the spousal support waiver; and in calculating the amount owing under the PDA.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for the production of corporate documents, including financial statements, at the respondents' expense.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed his request to the financial statements of three corporations, claiming to be a 15% shareholder.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the relief sought was premature given a pending appeal of an earlier decision between the parties, and that there was no demonstrated prejudice to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to expedite his appeal of an order dismissing his application for the production of corporate records.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to stay the appeal pending the outcome of a related trial appeal.

The court found that the appellant's grounds for expediting the appeal, including seeking documents to potentially argue for a different valuation date, were unpersuasive and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also found the respondents' grounds for a stay insufficient.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The respondents were successful on both the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $40,000, inclusive of all disbursements and HST.

The judgment was also varied on consent of the parties to correct two monetary amounts in paragraphs 5 and 7.

Minority shareholders appealed a trial judgment finding oppressive conduct by majority shareholders in a real estate development company.

The trial judge found that the majority had issued too many shares in response to cash calls when the minority shareholder refused to participate, thereby diluting the minority's ownership interest.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the shareholders' agreement and the calculation of share dilution, with minor adjustments to the valuation calculations.

The court also set aside punitive damages against one defendant due to inadequate notice in the pleadings, and dismissed the appellants' costs appeal.

This decision concerns the costs arising from a dispute between a daughter and son-in-law (Palmieris) and the father (Alaimo) over a house built on Alaimo's property.

The parties initially agreed to arbitration, but Alaimo subsequently challenged the arbitration agreement and award, necessitating two applications before the court.

The Palmieris were successful in enforcing the arbitration award and defending Alaimo's challenges.

The court considered Alaimo's conduct, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and involved advancing meritless positions, including an opportunistic allegation of bias against the arbitrator and unfounded claims regarding the arbitration agreement's payment terms.

Applying Rule 57.01(e) and (f)(i) and principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court awarded the Palmieris $57,800 in all-inclusive costs.

In the midst of an oppression remedy trial, the applicant brought a motion seeking production of the respondent companies' fiscal 2014 financial statements under various sections of the Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statutory provisions relied upon did not entitle the applicant to the financial statements and that the applicant had not established a strong prima facie case of oppression.

Furthermore, the court declined to grant leave for a mid-trial motion, noting that the requested documents would have no probative value without reopening the evidence to allow for supplementary expert reports.