Jacqueline Leslie Cole

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring the respondent the beneficial owner of 15% of a corporation's shares and finding their conduct oppressive under the OBCA.

The appellants narrowed their appeal to challenge only the order requiring production of financial statements dating back to 2014.

The Court of Appeal held that the production order was ancillary to the respondent's damages claim, not a standalone shareholder rights claim subject to a limitation period, and that compliance required only producing existing documents.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $30,000.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a conciliation decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation, which found that 14 construction items in a condominium's common elements breached statutory warranties and that the conciliation was chargeable to the builder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld Tarion's findings.

The court found that Tarion reasonably relied on its construction performance guidelines and the Building Code in assessing the defects, including water leakage in the garage roof slab and tenting of a waterproofing membrane.

The court also upheld Tarion's determination that the conciliation was chargeable, as the builder's settlement offers did not meet the requirements for an exception.

The court granted Alexander Shifrin a declaration that he is a 15% shareholder in LDF Frozen Foods Inc., along with related relief, including rectification of the share register, production of corporate documents, and a direction for a trial on damages.

The decision turned on the credibility of the parties and the existence of an enforceable agreement for Shifrin’s investment and shareholding.

The court found that Shifrin had not been repaid his investment and was entitled to the shares, and that his claim was not statute-barred.

The appellants, representative plaintiffs in a certified class proceeding concerning universal life insurance policies, appealed the dismissal of their motion to amend their statement of claim and add a new common issue regarding an 'Investment Spread Claim'.

The motion judge refused the amendments on the basis that the claim was a new cause of action that was discoverable in 2016 and therefore statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the claim was not captured by existing pleadings, was discoverable based on a 2016 repricing report, and did not engage a rolling limitation period as it involved discrete decisions rather than periodic breaches.

The plaintiff purchased three industrial units from the defendant, which were undergoing a delayed conversion into a condominium.

The plaintiff occupied the units under a one-year lease with zero base rent, which expired before the conversion was completed.

The defendant sought base rent for the overholding period from July 2017 to April 2022.

The court found no enforceable agreement for the $8,000 monthly base rent proposed by the defendant but awarded the defendant occupation rent based on unjust enrichment.

The court reduced the entitlement to 35 months due to the defendant's failure to issue invoices or notices, awarding $316,400 inclusive of HST.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses delays in the discovery process across several consolidated actions.

The primary issue identified was Mr. Behzad Pilehvar's failure to produce all relevant documents, including approximately 11,000 emails and text messages.

The court ordered Mr. Pilehvar to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents by December 19, 2023.

The endorsement also noted Mr. Pilehvar's counsel's contemplation of bringing a motion to remove himself from the record, which would impact scheduled discoveries and a planned mediation session in early spring 2024.

The court provided directions for scheduling future motions and case conferences.

The court-appointed Administrator of an estate brought a motion to appoint an investigator to review the accounts and assets of two intertwined family estates.

The estates had been mired in years of acrimonious litigation among the sibling beneficiaries, with allegations of breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated funds.

Finding that the accounts were complex, significant information was missing, and the parties were highly dysfunctional, the court granted the motion and appointed the investigator to provide a neutral analysis.

The plaintiffs in this class proceeding moved to amend their statement of claim to add a new cause of action related to an "investment spread" and sought certification of a new common issue.

The defendant opposed, arguing the claim was time-barred and the amendment would fundamentally alter the certified action.

The defendant also moved to strike portions of the plaintiffs' expert report as irrelevant.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding the claim discoverable in 2016 and thus out of time, and that the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.

The court granted the defendant's motion to strike the expert report portions related to the investment spread and profitability, deeming them irrelevant to the certified common issues.

This decision addresses a motion by Slavica Pavlovic to stay an application brought by Strype Barristers LLP seeking approval of their fees.

Ms. Pavlovic had also commenced an action against Strype Barristers for professional negligence and breach of contract, and had previously brought her own application challenging the fees, which was stayed by consent.

The court determined that the Strype Barristers' application should not be stayed but rather asserted as a counterclaim in Ms. Pavlovic's action, effectively consolidating the proceedings to avoid multiplicity, inconsistent results, and to promote efficiency.

The court also addressed costs for Ms. Pavlovic's initial, stayed application, ordering her to pay $30,000 to Strype Barristers.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding regarding universal life insurance policies brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiffs sought production of 12 general categories of documents and several specific documents related to the defendant's repricing of the cost of insurance and administrative fees.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality, granting production for some requests, such as internal communications regarding policyholder communications and documents related to the 'Maximum Premium' in death spiral situations, while dismissing others that were overly broad, irrelevant, or disproportionate.

Costs of $50,000 were awarded in the cause.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's court application in favour of arbitration pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The dispute arose from a royalty agreement concerning mining claims, which contained an arbitration clause.

The applicant argued that the court should determine the arbitrator's jurisdiction based on exceptions to the competence-competence principle.

The court found that the issues raised, including limitation periods, termination rights, and the application of contra proferentem, required more than a superficial review of the evidentiary record and were not pure questions of law.

The motion to stay was granted, and the alternative request for security for costs was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs of the proceedings in the Superior Court on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents contested a disbursement for the appellants' expert witness on damages, arguing the expert's evidence was rejected by the application judge as a mere mathematical exercise.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondents, finding that disallowing the disbursement did not amount to an improper distributive costs order, and that the expert evidence provided no value as it consisted only of basic calculations using publicly available share prices.

Costs were awarded to the appellants excluding the expert disbursement.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for damages arising from the respondent's refusal to honour the exercise of stock options.

The options were granted under a consulting agreement with a two-year term but specified a five-year exercise period.

The respondent argued the options expired six months after the consulting agreement ended, relying on an incorporated stock option plan.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in contractual interpretation.

The specific five-year exercise period in the grant took priority over the general termination provision in the incorporated plan.

Damages were awarded to the appellants in the amount of $2,820,000.

The plaintiff underwent open-heart surgery to remove a mass that was pre-operatively diagnosed as a likely myxoma (tumor) but was post-operatively confirmed to be a thrombus (blood clot).

The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action against the involved cardiologists, cardiac surgeon, and cardiac anaesthetist, alleging they breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the mass as a clot and treat it medically, and by failing to obtain informed consent.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the physicians met the standard of care in their differential diagnosis and treatment plan, as the mass had unusual features suggestive of a tumor and required surgical removal regardless.

The court also found that causation was not established and that informed consent was properly obtained.

Following the dismissal of Bell Canada's application, Cloudwifi's motion to dismiss/stay, and Cloudwifi's cross-application, both parties sought costs.

Bell sought partial indemnity costs of $122,572.78, and Cloudwifi sought $116,145.76.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

Bell was not entitled to costs as its application was dismissed.

Cloudwifi was denied costs despite its success on the jurisdictional issue because its actions in unlawfully utilizing Bell's equipment amounted to significant misconduct.

The applicant, a former CEO of Aphria Inc., sought damages for the company's refusal to honor his stock options and, in the alternative, relief from forfeiture.

The court found that the stock options had expired according to the terms of the Aphria Incentive Stock Option Plan, which was incorporated by reference into the applicant's agreements.

Furthermore, the applicant was found to have breached a non-competition agreement by leasing land to a medical marijuana producer during the restricted term.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application, denying both the claim for damages and the request for equitable relief from forfeiture due to the applicant's breach of the non-competition agreement.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim, Canopy Growth Corporation and Canopy Hemp Corporation ("Canopy"), brought a motion seeking preliminary relief in relation to pending summary judgment motions.

Canopy sought an order adjourning the summary judgment motions, establishing a discovery plan, ordering specific document production, and examinations of non-parties.

The plaintiff and defendants by counterclaim opposed the motion.

The court, applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, found that the summary judgment motions were not simple questions of law and contractual interpretation and that Canopy required some evidence to respond fairly.

The court ordered specific document production from the defendants by counterclaim and examinations of non-parties Vic Neufeld and John Cervini under Rule 39.03, but declined to order a full discovery plan or affidavits of documents.

The court also clarified its lack of jurisdiction to adjourn a judge's summary judgment motion or vary a judge's timetable.

The plaintiffs, two insurance companies (RSA/CNS), sued 2421593 Canadian Inc. (formerly Vancity Insurance Services Ltd. - VCI) and others for breach of contract.

The central issue was whether a legally enforceable contract existed for the exclusive provision of habitational insurance by RSA/CNS to VCI, and if so, whether VCI wrongfully terminated it.

The court found that the parties had entered into a legally binding agreement by September 11, 2008, for a five-year exclusive term with a two-year termination notice.

VCI breached this agreement by terminating it on September 9, 2009, without the required notice.

The court dismissed the action against Vancouver City Savings Credit Union due to lack of evidence for a conspiracy claim.

Damages for breach of contract against 2421593 Canadian Inc. are to be calculated based on a specified loss ratio and loss period.

This is a costs endorsement addressing the allocation of costs for certification and summary judgment motions in the Superior Court and the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The plaintiffs appealed from orders of Justice Paul M. Perell denying certification and granting summary judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiffs achieved partial success: they obtained certification on some common issues but not on their negligent misrepresentation claim, and they reversed summary judgment on some claims while others remained time-barred.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the plaintiffs reflecting their overall success.

This appeal concerns a proposed $2.5 billion class action involving more than 230,000 universal life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company between 1985 and 1998.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation in the sale of policies and breach of contractual duties relating to premiums and fees.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion for misrepresentation claims and initially declined to certify breach of contract claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, certifying the breach of contract common issues and allowing the plaintiffs to pursue individual misrepresentation claims.

The court found the motions judge erred in principle by failing to conduct individualized and contextual analyses of the limitation period defences and by improperly deciding the merits of the breach of contract claims at the certification stage.