James Beesley

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a 2013 consent dismissal and settlement agreement, as well as the dismissal of a new 2023 action claiming the same relief.

The motion judge found the appellant's motion and the new action were transparent attempts to relitigate issues that had been settled over a decade prior.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the doctrine of abuse of process prevents the relitigation of settled issues and that the interests of finality prevail absent contractual problems like fraud or duress.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment decision dismissing their oppression claim against the respondent in his personal capacity.

The motion judge had found that the appellants did not qualify as 'complainants' under section 245 of the Business Corporations Act, as they were not creditors and their status as potential creditors did not make them proper persons to bring an oppression claim.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law.

The court confirmed that the motion judge properly applied the test for complainant status and the framework for partial summary judgment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraphs 7-11 of the order of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party, Stephen Moranis, sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal in a long-running dispute with the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) and others regarding access to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) system and alleged breaches of a settlement agreement.

The Court reviewed the procedural history, including multiple actions, settlements, and motions, and applied the established factors for granting extensions of time.

While expressing reservations about the merits of the appeal, the Court granted a limited extension to August 1, 2025, finding no prejudice to the respondents and that the justice of the case warranted the extension.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by Jonathan Rosenthal, in his personal capacity, seeking dismissal of the oppression claim brought against him by Paragon Protection Ltd. and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Inc. The central issue was whether the plaintiffs were proper "complainants" under section 245 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act and thus had standing to advance an oppression remedy claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs, not being current or former security holders or creditors of Tamstu-Harjon Holdings of Canada Limited, could not qualify as proper complainants based solely on their status as potential creditors arising from the litigation itself.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the claim against Mr. Rosenthal personally.

The decision addresses motions by Stephen Moranis to set aside a 2013 settlement and to pursue a new, nearly identical action against the Toronto Real Estate Board and others.

The court finds that Moranis’s attempts to re-litigate settled and dismissed claims constitute an abuse of process.

The court dismisses both the motion to set aside the settlement and the new action, emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation and compliance with court-ordered timetables.

The defendants, Jonathan Rosenthal and Benjamin Barrett, acting as Estate Trustees of Cyril Hirsch Rosenthal's Estate, brought a motion seeking an order to lift the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(8) for certain documents ("Pervez Productions") disclosed by Paragon Protection Ltd. in this proceeding.

They sought leave to use these documents in a related Estate Proceeding and a pending contempt motion against a former estate trustee, Syed Pervez.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice outweighed any potential prejudice to Paragon, especially given the close relationship between the proceedings and the fact that the documents were already ordered to be produced and were relevant.

The appellants abandoned their appeal of an order appointing a liquidator to wind up their business.

The respondents sought $32,764.35 in costs for work done prior to the abandonment, despite not having filed a response to the appeal.

The court applied Rule 61.14(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that an abandoned appeal shall be without costs if no response was filed.

Noting that the respondents had already received costs for a related stay motion and failed to provide detailed time records distinguishing the work, the court declined to deviate from the general rule and awarded no costs.

The plaintiffs and defendants were equal shareholders in two closely held corporations that owned and operated gas stations and a driving range.

Following a breakdown in their relationship and a deadlock over succession planning and the division of corporate assets, both parties alleged oppressive conduct against the other.

The court found that both shareholders had engaged in conduct that unfairly disregarded the other's interests.

Given the irreparable breakdown of trust and the deadlock, the court ordered the winding up and liquidation of the companies by a court-appointed receiver.

The court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff's wife, finding she was not a shareholder or officer, but awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in compensation for his historical management of the companies.

The appellant sought to enforce letters of request from a Florida court to obtain documents from the former Ontario lawyers of his ex-wife and daughter for use in a Florida action for parental alienation.

The application judge dismissed the application on public policy grounds, finding it would interfere with solicitor-client privilege and client confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the hearing was procedurally fair and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to enforce the letters of request because they sought presumptively privileged documents.

The applicant father sought to enforce Letters Rogatory and a subpoena issued by a Florida court against several Ontario lawyers who had represented his ex-wife and daughter in previous family law proceedings.

The Florida action sought damages for interference with parental rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application on public policy grounds, holding that the underlying cause of action is forbidden in Canada and that enforcing the subpoena would violate solicitor-client privilege and confidentiality.