Jacqueline Houston

Following a trial in which the plaintiff succeeded on oppression and unjust enrichment claims against two of nine defendants and was awarded $1,313,495.13 — less than sought — the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the divided success, the moderate complexity of the litigation, and the principle of proportionality under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.

The court declined to treat the trial conduct of either party as a cost factor, but reduced the disbursement for the expert report given its partial admissibility.

Partial indemnity fees of $400,000 plus HST and disbursements of $120,000 including HST were ordered against the successful defendants.

The plaintiff, Amos Tayts, and the defendant Maxim Zavet, a lawyer, pursued a medical cannabis venture together.

Mr. Tayts contributed significant 'sweat equity' to the venture, which eventually became successful.

However, when founder's shares were allocated, Mr. Tayts was excluded and offered only a nominal amount.

Mr. Tayts sued for breach of contract, oppression, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while there was no binding contract for a specific percentage of shares, Mr. Tayts had a reasonable expectation of receiving founder's shares.

The court held that Mr. Zavet and the corporate defendants engaged in oppressive conduct by unfairly disregarding Mr. Tayts' interests.

The court also found Mr. Zavet and his holding company liable for unjust enrichment.

The court awarded Mr. Tayts $1,313,495.13 in damages.

The claim for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed as the court found no solicitor-client relationship existed for the venture.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal that ordered the issuance of insurance agent licences to the respondent.

The respondent had previously made false statements on his licence applications regarding his termination from a bank and had conducted unlicensed insurance activity.

The Tribunal found that despite the misconduct, the respondent was suitable to be licensed subject to strict supervision conditions and a $10,000 penalty.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The Tribunal was entitled to substitute its opinion for that of the FSRA and properly weighed the evidence, including the respondent's positive employment record and the context of his misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and sought leave to appeal a $50,000 costs award.

The appellant had made threats to communicate damaging information to the respondent's clients and the Ministry of Transportation if unpaid wage claims were not satisfied.

The motion judge found that the appellant's communications were fundamentally about his employment dispute rather than matters of public interest, and that the respondent would easily prove the statements were false and harmful.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's analysis under s. 137.1(3) or s. 137.1(4)(b), and affirmed the costs award.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority brought a motion to stay an order of the Financial Services Tribunal pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal had previously ordered the CEO to issue an insurance agent licence to the responding party on conditions, despite a Notice of Proposal to refuse the licence.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the regulator.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The court dismissed an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Zhou Chen, a former employee of Diverse Transportation, who had sent disparaging messages to Diverse’s customers linking payment demands to allegations of misconduct.

The court found that Chen’s communications were not genuinely in the public interest but were instead a façade for a private employment dispute and debt collection.

The decision clarifies the threshold for public interest under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and affirms that anti-SLAPP protections do not extend to private disputes disguised as matters of public concern.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to adduce evidence and for a confidentiality order in the context of a reference regarding the legality of an online provincial lottery scheme permitting international play.

The court granted leave to the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Canadian Lottery Coalition Members to file their proposed evidence, finding it potentially helpful for the reference panel.

The court dismissed the Canadian Gaming Association's motion for a confidentiality order, ruling that alleged reputational harm was a private interest insufficient to override court openness, especially as the information was largely public.