Jacob Medvedev

The appellant retained the respondent to provide strategic advice for a hostile takeover of a competitor.

The contract included a success fee payable upon the appellant gaining control of the target's management.

After an initial meeting requisition strategy failed, the appellant pursued a consensual purchase transaction without the respondent's involvement.

The trial judge found the contract was goal-focused and awarded the success fee and management fee to the respondent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no extricable errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's interpretation of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court fixed costs following trial in favour of Kingsdale Partners LP, the successful party, in the amount of $475,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision reviews the factors relevant to the exercise of discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, including the complexity of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of the costs claimed.

The court reduced the amount sought due to concerns about duplication of work and high hourly rates, but found the overall claim proportionate to the litigation and the parties' resources.

The court considered whether Kingsdale Partners LP was entitled to a success fee from Sprott Asset Management LP under an engagement agreement relating to Sprott’s acquisition of Central Fund of Canada Ltd. (CFCL).

The court found that the agreement was not limited to a single strategy and was not terminated prior to Sprott’s acquisition of CFCL’s assets.

The court held that Kingsdale was entitled to the success fee and an additional management fee, rejecting Sprott’s arguments that the fee was not triggered or should be de minimis due to the structure of the transaction.

The applicant company sought an interim and interlocutory injunction to enforce a standstill agreement against its founder and largest shareholder, pending arbitration.

The respondent had issued a press release calling for the replacement of the board of directors, which the applicant argued breached the negative covenants in the agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of negative covenants, irreparable harm to the company's goodwill, and a balance of convenience favoring the applicant.

The anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed because the application had substantial merit and the public interest in enforcing commercial contracts outweighed the protection of the expression.