James Jagtoo

The plaintiff consulting firm brought an action against the defendant for unpaid fees based on an hourly rate under a written agreement.

The defendant argued that the parties had orally agreed to a new flat-rate agreement, or alternatively, that the plaintiff's conduct—including concealing hourly tracking in invoices using white font—amounted to acquiescence, breach of good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, and fundamental breach.

The Superior Court of Justice found that no new agreement was reached and rejected all of the defendant's equitable and common law defences.

The court held that the original agreement remained in force and ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding invoices, as well as damages for failing to provide the required one month's written notice of termination.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator’s ruling under ss. 45(2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 after the arbitrator dismissed a motion seeking to strike or limit the respondent’s claims based on an exclusion clause in a distribution agreement.

The court held that the arbitrator’s decision was interlocutory rather than a final award because it did not dispose of the substantive dispute and instead required factual findings at a full hearing.

Under the Arbitration Act, interlocutory rulings in arbitration are not subject to appeal.

The court further found no error in the arbitrator’s conclusion that interpretation of the contractual limitation clause required consideration of the factual matrix.

The appeal and challenge to the arbitrator’s costs award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order made after an uncontested family trial that imputed income to him and required payment of child support, while the respondent brought a cross‑appeal seeking retroactive child support and full indemnity costs.

The appellate court found that the uncontested trial proceeded without proper service or notice to the appellant despite an upcoming scheduled hearing and unresolved disclosure issues.

The court held that fundamental procedural fairness requires that a litigant receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before a final order affecting legal rights is made.

Because the order was obtained ex parte without justification, it was set aside and the matter directed to proceed to trial.

Interim support and disclosure orders were imposed to move the matter forward.