James Renihan

The plaintiff in a putative class action regarding unfulfilled solar panel installation contracts brought a motion to amend the statement of claim, add 17 new defendants (including the IESO), and extend the time for service on several existing defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to add the IESO and 15 Solart-associated entities, finding the claims against them were statute-barred as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims more than two years prior.

The court partially granted leave to amend the claim against existing defendants, striking certain proposed paragraphs that improperly pleaded evidence or lacked material facts.

The court granted the extension of time for service on several defendants, finding no actual prejudice to the defence.

Appeal from a trial judgment dismissing a negligent misrepresentation claim.

The appellants, a manufacturer of assembly lines, contracted to supply equipment to a German company.

When the purchaser transferred the contract to its Canadian subsidiary, the appellants requested assurances from the parent company.

The respondents provided a letter from their bank confirming project financing and the parent company's guarantee.

When the project failed due to industry collapse, the appellants sued for negligent misrepresentation, claiming the letter was misleading because it failed to disclose that the bank's financing was conditional.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the representation was true and not misleading, and that the appellants had not reasonably relied on it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error and no denial of procedural fairness.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim to rectify a promissory note and the dissolution of an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants relied on contractual indemnity provisions in the promissory note and guarantee to claim full indemnity costs.

The court held that the plain language of the contracts entitled the main defendants to full indemnity costs.

The costs claimed were found to be reasonable under Rule 57.01, with a minor deduction for a defendant lawyer's time spent attending trial as a spectator.

A separate defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought to rectify a promissory note, arguing that the fixed due date of December 31, 2015, did not reflect the true intent of the parties and was a mistake.

Alternatively, they argued there was a subsequent agreement to defer payment until a new financing deal was completed.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the written terms of the note accurately reflected the parties' agreement and that no subsequent agreement to defer enforcement had been reached.

The interim injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the note was dissolved.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion for costs after the responding parties (plaintiffs) discontinued their action.

The responding parties had commenced the action after being informed by the moving parties' agent that the moving parties intended to breach an agreement to return properties following a condominium development.

The responding parties discontinued the action once the moving parties finally provided written confirmation that they would comply with their contractual obligations.

The court dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the responding parties had a bona fide cause of action and were justified in commencing the claim.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of the motion.

The respondent was employed as President and CEO of the appellant's television division under a fixed-term employment agreement expiring October 31, 2011.

The agreement provided for a two-year severance payment and a six-month paid sabbatical upon expiry.

When the contract expired, the parties continued negotiations for a new agreement but could not reach consensus.

The appellant refused to pay the severance or arrange the sabbatical, claiming the respondent had waived these entitlements.

The appellant subsequently terminated the respondent's employment with eight months' notice and a two-month severance package.

The respondent obtained summary judgment for breach of contract, recovering damages for the two-year severance payment and payment in lieu of the sabbatical.

On appeal, the appellant argued the respondent had waived the sabbatical entitlement and that the severance provision was invalid under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no valid waiver and rejecting the argument that an inapplicable termination clause could void the severance entitlement.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraphs in the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim alleging financial improprieties by the individual defendants.

The defendants argued that under Rea v. Wildeboer, these were derivative claims that could not be pursued in a personal oppression action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims were 'individualized claims' because the plaintiffs sought to adjust the historical earnings of the corporation to determine the fair value of their shares following their alleged wrongful termination.

The court held that in the context of a closely held corporation, there is a defensible basis for overlap between personal and derivative claims.

The moving party, a former non-equity partner at the responding party law firm, brought a motion as an intervenor seeking an order under Rule 45.02 for the payment into court of a specific fund.

The fund in question was a contingency fee payable to the law firm by a client, which the moving party claimed he was entitled to a portion of based on an employment and fee-splitting agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's claim was essentially for damages for breach of contract rather than a legal right to a specific fund, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the order.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision allowing the respondent tenant to exercise an option to purchase a commercial property.

The landlord argued the tenant was in default of rent payments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the tenant's obligation to pay rent was conditional on the successful completion of an asset purchase agreement, which had been delayed pending regulatory approval.

The tenant's cross-appeal for damages for rent paid during the delayed closing period was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence quantifying the loss.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim.

The court considered whether the successful defendants, Sparkasse Siegen and Thomas Magnete GmbH, should receive costs on a higher scale due to settlement offers, and whether costs should be awarded against a non-party, Mr. Mellema.

The court declined to award higher scale costs, finding the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous and their refusal to accept settlement offers was not unreasonable.

It also declined to award costs against Mr. Mellema personally, noting the defendants' awareness of his involvement and their prior opportunities to seek increased security for costs or provide notice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both defendants.

This case involved an application and counter-application concerning a commercial sub-lease and an option to purchase real property.

The Landlord (2405416 Ontario Ltd.) sought a declaration that the Tenant (2405490 Ontario Inc.) had defaulted on the sub-lease, terminating it, and obligating the Tenant to sell its business to the Landlord.

The Tenant counter-applied for a declaration compelling the Landlord to sell the premises under the option to purchase, and for damages for rent paid.

The court found that the Tenant was not in default regarding rent payments or renovations, interpreting the lease's rent commencement date as conditional on the closing of an Asset Purchase Agreement and the issuance of a body-rub licence.

The court also found the Landlord's complaints to be a pretext for refusing to comply with its obligations.

The Tenant's counter-application was granted in part, affirming its right to purchase the property, but its claim for damages for rent paid was dismissed.

The Landlord's application was dismissed.

The appellants were awarded costs of the motion before the Superior Court on consent.

The respondents were ordered to pay $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, in addition to the costs awarded to the appellants in the appeal.

The appellants, General Motors dealers in the Greater Toronto Area, sued GMCL and its US parent company, GM US, alleging breaches of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act and at common law.

The motion judge struck the claim against GM US under Rule 21, finding it was neither a party to the franchise agreement nor a franchisor's associate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether GM US was a franchisor's associate or owed a duty of fair dealing required a full factual record and should not be dismissed at the pleadings stage.

The plaintiffs, suppliers of automated assembly lines, sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract following the cancellation of a major auto sector project.

The plaintiffs alleged they relied on a comfort letter from the defendants regarding project financing and that a subsequent oral agreement was made for the defendants to assume the debt.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the comfort letter was not misleading and reliance on it was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' own deceptive request.

The court also found no evidence of the alleged oral agreement and held that any such claim would be barred by the Limitations Act and the Statute of Frauds.

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion in an employment contract dispute.

The plaintiff, Bill Roberts, was awarded $672,452.96.

Roberts sought substantial indemnity costs of $110,309.25, arguing the defendant's defence was unreasonable.

The defendant, Zoomermedia Limited, contended for reduced partial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's initial claim versus recovery ratio and alleged "over-lawyering." The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding no basis for a punitive award.

However, it awarded Roberts partial indemnity costs of $80,000, all-inclusive, recognizing him as the successful party despite the reduction from his original claim, and acknowledging some overlapping or redundant work by counsel.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for breach of an employment agreement after his employment was terminated by a successor employer.

The defendant argued that the written agreement had been displaced by a common law employment relationship, limiting the plaintiff to common law notice.

The court found that while a common law relationship governed after the fixed-term contract expired, it did not discharge the defendant's obligations to pay the severance and sabbatical entitlements promised under the original agreement.

The court granted summary judgment for the contractual entitlements but dismissed the claims for bad faith and punitive damages.

The appellant landlords appealed a decision declaring that their consent was not required for the respondent tenants to assign and sublease commercial leases as part of a joint venture.

The tenants proposed assigning the leases to a limited partnership whose general partner was the existing tenant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that a limited partnership can only hold property through its general partner.

Since the leases were being assigned to the general partner, which was the existing tenant, the assignment fell within the leases' affiliate exception and did not require the landlords' consent.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a series of ex parte 'investigative receivership' orders, the successful appellants sought costs against both the original applicant and the court-appointed receiver.

The Court of Appeal held that both were liable for costs.

The applicant was liable on a partial indemnity scale because he initiated and supported the proceedings.

The receiver was held personally liable for costs on a substantial indemnity scale because it acted as a 'real litigator' and pursued an impermissibly overreaching roving receivership, losing its objectivity as an officer of the court.

The Court also clarified that substantial indemnity costs are calculated as 1.5 times partial indemnity costs under Rule 1.03, rather than as a percentage of full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff vendor commenced an action after the defendant purchaser failed to complete a commercial real estate transaction governed by an amended agreement of purchase and sale.

The purchaser argued that the contract was void due to an unmet third‑party condition and alleged failure to produce a long‑form lease.

The court found the amended agreement was a firm contract without conditions precedent and that the purchaser breached it by failing to pay the additional deposit and refusing to close in an attempt to renegotiate price.

Specific performance was denied because damages were an adequate remedy in the context of a commercial property transaction.

The court assessed damages at $300,000 based on the difference between the agreed purchase price and the market evidence available, and ordered release of the deposit to the vendor.

The applicants, anchor tenants in three shopping malls, sought to assign and sublease their leases to a joint venture limited partnership.

The respondent landlords refused consent.

The court held that consent was not required because the leases were being assigned to the general partner, which was an affiliate of the existing tenant, thus falling under the leases' Affiliate Exception.

Alternatively, the court found that the landlords unreasonably withheld consent for two of the leases, as the tenant would remain liable and continue operating the stores, but the landlord was entitled to arbitrarily withhold consent for the third lease based on its specific terms.