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 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.

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.

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 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 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.

The appellants, two insurance companies, appealed the summary dismissal of their action against respondents for breach of an alleged oral agreement and inducement of breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the parties had agreed that no binding contractual relationship would exist without a signed written agreement (the "Precondition").

The Court of Appeal found this conclusion was a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence only supported that the parties intended to eventually document their agreement in writing, not that execution of a written contract was a precondition to legal obligations.

The court allowed the appeal against the Vancity respondents and directed the matter to trial, but dismissed the appeal against the Co-operators respondents on alternative grounds.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss claims of breach of contract and inducing breach of contract.

The plaintiffs alleged an oral agreement for an exclusive insurance supplier arrangement with Vancity Insurance, which was later sold to Co-operators.

The court found that no binding oral agreement existed because the parties intended their legal obligations to be deferred until a formal written contract was approved and executed.

Consequently, the claim for inducing breach of contract against Co-operators also failed, as there was no valid contract to breach, and Co-operators had no knowledge of a binding agreement, nor did it "turn a blind eye." The action was dismissed against all defendants.