Jadeney Wong

The Applicants sought damages and forfeiture of a deposit arising from a failed residential property purchase and sale agreement.

The Respondents argued they were entitled to not close due to the Applicants' innocent material misrepresentation regarding municipal taxes and alleged bad faith.

The court found that an "entire agreement" clause in the contract precluded reliance on the alleged misrepresentation, and consequently, the bad faith argument failed.

The Applicants were awarded damages of $425,319.69 and the $100,000 deposit was forfeited.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for theft and conversion as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period was suspended until the conclusion of a related criminal investigation, believing a restitution order would be an appropriate remedy.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts by July 2019.

It held that an ongoing criminal investigation or the mere prospect of a restitution order does not constitute an "appropriate means" to remedy a civil loss, nor does it suspend the limitation period, unless the civil claim is directly against the Crown or police.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim as out-of-time.

The plaintiff, Morgan Canada Corporation, sought extensive injunctive relief against former employees and their new employer, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, breach of confidence, and spoliation.

The court found that Morgan Canada failed to establish a strong prima facie case for any of its claims, including that the former employees owed fiduciary duties or misused confidential information.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favored the defendants.

The motion for injunctive relief, appointment of an inspector, and a sealing order were dismissed.

This certified class action concerned allegations of misleading advertising by Ford regarding fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels for 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles, claiming breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection statutes.

Both parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no contravention of the Competition Act due to Ford's compliance with federal guidelines and a lack of evidentiary support for a misleading general impression.

While provincial consumer protection laws allow for non-disclosure claims, the court found no legal obligation for Ford to provide additional disclosures (a "Second Label") beyond the EnerGuide Label and the referenced Fuel Consumption Guide, as there was no evidence that car buyers were deceived.

The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the class action, was granted.

The respondents, who were largely successful in defending a shareholder oppression application, sought costs including substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle.

The court found that the offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences because it omitted the applicant's statutory right to audited financial statements, an issue on which the applicant was successful.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs, reduced by 25% to reflect the applicant's partial success, fixing costs at $75,000.

The applicant, a 40% shareholder in a holding company (Pazkaz) that owns shares in a start-up (Rave), brought an oppression application under section 248 of the OBCA.

He alleged improper share dilution and mischaracterization of contributions as equity instead of loans, seeking various remedies including a buyout, conversion of equity to loans, removal of directors, or forced sale/winding up.

The court dismissed most of the applicant's claims, finding no unfair prejudice or oppression regarding share dilution or loan characterization, as the companies issued shares commensurate with investments and there was no evidence of misappropriation.

However, the court granted the applicant's request for audited financial statements for both Pazkaz and Rave, affirming a shareholder's statutory right to such information.

At a case conference for a certified class action claiming $1.5 billion for understated fuel consumption, both parties had brought summary judgment motions.

Given the complexity of the case, which involves nearly two dozen expert witnesses and significant technical data, the court endorsed the parties' proposal to proceed with a 4-week hybrid trial rather than a 'trial in a box' summary judgment motion.