Jason W.J. Woycheshyn

The plaintiff commenced an action in January 2018 claiming over $5 million in damages arising from a crop failure allegedly caused by the defendant's seeds.

The action was administratively dismissed for delay on March 12, 2025, pursuant to Rule 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the dismissal and sought approval of a litigation timetable.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the action was over seven and a half years old with no explanation for five years of delay.

The court granted the motion to set aside the dismissal, finding that the plaintiff satisfied the legal test despite significant delay.

The court imposed a timetable for completion of examinations, undertakings, mediation, and trial set-down, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of $6,500.

The individual defendants, former directors and officers of Old Noranco, brought a motion seeking advancement of legal expenses from the plaintiff (successor to Old Noranco and the purchaser) to defend against claims of misrepresentation in financial statements and a crossclaim by BDO Canada LLP.

The court determined that the claims, despite being framed against them as shareholders, implicated their fiduciary capacities, thus triggering indemnification rights.

The plaintiff failed to establish a "strong prima facie" case of bad faith against one defendant, Kelly Clinton, which would have disentitled him to funding.

The court also ruled that the existence of third-party funding did not preclude the individual defendants from recovering their legal expenses.

The motion for advancement of legal expenses was granted.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for a declaration regarding a licensing agreement, the successful respondent sought costs of $97,696.78 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued the costs were excessive and suggested $65,000.

The court rejected the applicants' argument that hours spent on moot issues should be excluded, noting the issues only became moot after the fact.

The court fixed costs at $80,000 all inclusive, finding it to be a fair and reasonable amount.

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent breached a Letter Agreement and had no valid license to market and sell the applicants' fish-rearing technology.

The court found that neither party had breached the agreement, as time of the essence had been suspended and not properly reinstated.

The parties had mutually agreed to terminate the agreement, triggering the respondent's right to a refund or a license.

The court held that the respondent validly exercised its right to acquire the license, which was certain and enforceable.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Westmount-Keele Limited, purchased a hotel from the defendants, Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real Estate Investment Trust and North York (Keele St.) Purchaseco Inc., with an agreement to reimburse Royal Host for up to $2 million in hotel closure costs.

Westmount's obligation was secured by a mortgage, later replaced by $2.2 million paid into court.

The central issue was to determine Royal Host's entitlement from these funds.

The court found Royal Host's initial claim of over $2.1 million in closing costs to be largely unsubstantiated, particularly a fictitious franchise termination fee.

The court determined that Royal Host was entitled to $638,201 plus prejudgment interest at a blended rate of 1.72%, significantly less than claimed, and Westmount was entitled to the return of the remaining funds.

The court also found Royal Host's conduct contributed to the delay in proceedings.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim for economic damages.

The appellant argued that the respondents breached their obligation to properly quantify post-closing costs, which impeded the appellant's ability to obtain financing for phase II of a development.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge properly addressed the appellant's submissions and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement reconsidering its prior decision to grant leave to appeal.

The initial decision granted leave to appeal an injunction order concerning a restrictive covenant in a commercial lease.

The reconsideration was prompted by an oversight where responding and reply materials were not initially put before the judge.

After reviewing the full record, the court affirmed its decision to grant leave to appeal, finding reasons to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's interpretation of the restrictive covenant and its exception, and the application of the RJR Macdonald test regarding irreparable harm and delay.

The court also noted the importance of the issues due to the common use of restrictive covenants in commercial leases.

Costs were reserved to the Divisional Court or to be fixed by the judge upon written submissions.

Easyfinancial Services Incorporated (Easyfinancial) sought leave to appeal an injunction granted by Andre, J., which required 7724934 Canada Inc. to comply with a restrictive covenant in its lease with EZMoney Tario Inc., preventing Easyfinancial from operating its business in Kingspoint Plaza.

Easyfinancial argued the motions judge erred in interpreting the restrictive covenant, assessing irreparable harm, applying assumption of risk over balance of convenience, and failing to consider EZMoney's delay.

The court found reason to doubt the correctness of the original order on these grounds and granted leave to appeal, noting the importance of restrictive covenants in commercial leases beyond the immediate parties.

Following an earlier decision requiring certain respondents to purchase the applicant’s shares in a corporation for $4.25 million, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was lower than the judgment amount and sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the extensive litigation history, overlapping issues involving two related corporate interests, and the respondents’ conduct that complicated document production and valuation.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors and recognizing the respondents’ obstructive conduct, the court fixed substantial indemnity costs for fees and taxes and allowed claimed disbursements and expert valuation expenses in full.

The applicant brought an oppression application against her father and brother, alleging they conducted the family business in an oppressive manner.

The applicant was secretly removed as a director of the corporation, denied financial information, and pressured to sell her shares at a dictated price.

The court found the respondents' conduct was abusive, coercive, and unfairly disregarded the applicant's reasonable expectations as a shareholder and director.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the applicant's shares at a fair value of $4.25 million, declining to apply a minority discount.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding the procedure for an oppression-related application involving disputes over family-owned corporations.

The applicant sought to sever and proceed first with issues concerning ownership and valuation of shares in one corporation, arguing that those issues were discrete and could be resolved without delay.

The respondents argued the matters were intertwined and that the entire proceeding should be converted to an action and proceed to trial.

The court held that it was premature to determine whether the issues could ultimately be severed or whether a trial would be required, and that the applicant should be permitted to proceed with the proposed application hearing limited to the corporate issues identified.

The parties were directed to establish a timetable for hearing the application issues.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to examine a different corporate representative for discovery rather than the employee selected by the plaintiff.

The dispute arose in the context of a family and corporate conflict involving claims for wrongful dismissal and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court held that the examining party has a prima facie right to choose the corporate representative to be examined, subject only to limited judicial intervention where the selection is inappropriate or oppressive.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that the chosen employee lacked sufficient knowledge, could not inform himself, or that the examination would be unduly oppressive.

The motion to substitute the witness was dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving parties.

The defendant bank moved to dismiss an action alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation on the basis that the plaintiff breached the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by using documentary productions obtained in related litigation to commence a separate claim.

The court held that the plaintiff had indeed used documents obtained through discovery in the earlier proceeding to inform and support its decision to initiate the new action, thereby breaching the deemed undertaking rule.

However, considering the substantial overlap in parties, issues, and factual matrix between the two proceedings, and the minimal prejudice to the producing party, the court granted retroactive relief from the rule.

The court dismissed the bank’s motion to dismiss or stay the action but allowed the plaintiff limited permission to use the discovery materials in the new action.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff due to its failure to seek leave before using the materials and its lack of candour in case management proceedings.

In a Commercial List case conference concerning potential refusals motions, the court addressed whether interlocutory motions to compel answers to refused discovery questions should be scheduled.

The case management judge emphasized the court’s inherent jurisdiction and the proportionality principles in the Rules of Civil Procedure to control litigation and allocate scarce judicial resources.

The court held that a Commercial List case management judge may decline to schedule refusals motions and instead direct that, if a refusal later proves improper at trial, an adverse inference may be drawn against the refusing party.

Such directions may bind the parties at trial unless the trial judge determines otherwise to prevent injustice.

In a complex commercial fraud and negligence action involving multiple defendants, the court issued a case conference memorandum addressing the status of discovery, mediation, expert reports, and pre‑trial procedure.

The court directed timelines for completion of undertakings and remaining examinations for discovery.

It encouraged the parties to consider avoiding refusals motions due to limited judicial resources and proposed an alternative approach allowing trial judges to address refused questions if necessary.

The parties were instructed to advise the court whether they would forego refusals motions or proceed with them.

The court also directed the parties to contact a judge to schedule a lengthy trial and to return for a further case conference if mediation failed.

The defendant bank brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to questions asked on the cross‑examination of an affiant concerning documents reviewed by counsel when drafting a claim.

The information sought related to whether the plaintiff had used documents produced in another action in alleged breach of the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the requested information constituted solicitor‑client communications and was therefore subject to near‑absolute privilege.

The “future crime and fraud” exception to solicitor‑client privilege did not apply because an alleged breach of the deemed undertaking rule did not approach the level of criminal or fraudulent conduct required to displace privilege.

The motion to compel answers was dismissed.

In a Commercial List case conference, the court addressed procedural issues arising during case management of complex banking litigation.

A related action commenced by another party against the plaintiff bank had not been disclosed at an earlier case conference, prompting the court to require an explanation and direct counsel to attend a further appointment to address potential motions and case coordination.

The court also addressed discovery disputes, including requests to examine additional representatives and disagreements about whether discovery rights had been exhausted.

Timetables were set for written motion materials regarding discovery disputes, interrogatories, expert reports, and a forensic accounting report.

The court emphasized the importance of transparency in case management and minimizing interlocutory motions in complex litigation.

The moving party sought advice and directions under a court‑approved CCAA Plan of Arrangement governing the restructuring of Canada’s third‑party asset‑backed commercial paper market.

The administrator argued the Plan and related agreements permitted it to terminate credit default swap transactions and fund termination payments from collateral without dealer consent below specified thresholds.

A dealer noteholder opposed, asserting the agreements required negotiated consent where collateral beyond a specific trade would be affected.

The court held that the contractual language did not eliminate consent requirements and that the court’s broad CCAA jurisdiction could not be used to effectively rewrite the negotiated agreements.

The request for declaratory or corrective relief was refused.