Jeffrey Larry

The plaintiff, Intercap Equity Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a debt and a personal guarantee against the principals of the corporate debtor, Capsule Media Inc. The defendants argued that the guarantee was discharged by a novation clause in a subsequent loan agreement and that their subjective understanding of the contract should be considered.

The court found the guarantee to be a continuing guarantee, covering liabilities connected to the original loan despite subsequent amendments and restatements.

The defendants' subjective interpretations were deemed inadmissible and incredible.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, enforcing the guarantee against all defendants jointly and severally.

The Receiver and Monitor sought court approval for the sale of geothermal assets and an order compelling the assignment of a long-term lease (the "Berm Lease") to the purchaser.

King Towns North Inc. (KTNI), the landlord under the Berm Lease, opposed the assignment order, arguing that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) does not grant receivers statutory authority to compel assignments and that the assignment was inappropriate given the nominal rent and a lease clause allowing unreasonable withholding of consent.

The court found jurisdiction to grant the assignment order under BIA s. 243(1)(c) in conjunction with s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, or alternatively, through its inherent jurisdiction, emphasizing a purposive approach to Canadian insolvency laws.

The court concluded that the assignment was appropriate, as it was critical to the transaction, the assignee's financial obligations were nominal, and KTNI's allocation entitlements could be addressed at a later date.

The sale transaction and a sealing order for confidential information were also approved.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiff, a UK national residing in Bahrain, had entered into an oral loan agreement with the defendant, who claimed to reside in Pakistan.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant was domiciled or resident in Ontario, or carried on business in Ontario.

The court found that while the defendant carried on business in Ontario, the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because there was no real and substantial connection between the loan agreement and the defendant's business activities in Ontario.

The action was stayed for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The Representative Plaintiff in a certified class action sought court approval for a $4.2 million settlement with the defendant auditor, approval of Class Counsel's contingency fees and disbursements, and an honorarium for the Representative Plaintiff.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the litigation risks and protracted nature of the case.

Class Counsel's fees and disbursements, and the Representative Plaintiff's honorarium, were also approved.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions breached their trust and fiduciary duties by failing to disclose markup fees charged on foreign currency conversions in registered accounts.

The parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment on the common issues, and the defendants moved for decertification.

The court found that the defendants breached the trust agreements by failing to disclose the amount of the markup fees.

The court ordered an accounting of profits to be determined at a reference, emphasizing the need to deter fiduciary misconduct.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for an elevated interest rate and punitive damages, and dismissed the defendants' motion to decertify the class action.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a class action for secondary market misrepresentation against a company and its officers.

The claims arose from an unauthorized investment made by the CEO, which was not fully disclosed in subsequent financial statements and press releases.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility that the CFO knew or deliberately avoided knowing about the unauthorized investment, and that a press release announcing the CEO's departure constituted a public correction, signaling concerns about the CEO's conduct related to the investment.

The plaintiff, a receiver and manager of a limited partnership, brought a motion for summary judgment in an action against subscribers to recover alleged debts under "Assumption of Loan and Debt Agreements." The defendants opposed the motion and sought dismissal of the action.

The court found that these agreements were neither guarantees nor indemnities enforceable by the Limited Partnership, but rather primary obligations to the original creditor contingent on the success of the underlying transaction.

Furthermore, the court determined the action was statute-barred, as the limitation period for a claim for contribution and indemnity had expired, having commenced no later than when a Master refused to add the subscribers as defendants in a prior action.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The applicant, Muhammad Watto, and two corporations he controlled, brought two applications.

The first sought a declaration of oppression against the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council for revoking approval of continuing professional development programs.

The second sought the appointment of an inspector to investigate the Regulatory Council's affairs.

The court dismissed both applications, finding no proven oppression and no demonstrated need for an inspector, as the applicant lacked standing for the oppression claim regarding the corporations and failed to establish a prima facie case for an investigation.

A commercial real estate deal involving three properties failed to close.

The plaintiff, NJS Capital Management Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rectification, or rescission based on unconscionability, arguing the deals were cross-conditional and a package.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the contracts and dismissing the counterclaims, concluding there was no oral agreement for cross-conditionality or misrepresentation, and the contracts were not unconscionable.

The plaintiffs, Jonathan Persaud and Fleetfind Technologies Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid commissions from the defendant, Solar Power Networks Inc. The core dispute involved the interpretation of a "Commission Agreement" regarding the scope and duration of commission payments for solar project leases.

The plaintiffs claimed entitlement to $2,000,000 in commissions for the first 60 MW of sites, regardless of Mr. Persaud's direct involvement or the timing of revenue generation.

The defendant argued the commissions were time-limited and tied to Mr. Persaud's role as Vice President of Sales.

The court rejected both parties' extreme interpretations, finding that commissions were payable on the first 60 MW of sites for which the defendant obtained leases, only if and when those projects generated revenue, up to a maximum of $2,000,000, and that the obligation survived termination of the relationship.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on liability but required further submissions for damages calculation.

The applicants sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent regulatory body from revoking their status as approved providers of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programs.

The court applied the tripartite test for injunctions, noting the higher standard for mandatory injunctions (strong prima facie case).

The court found no strong prima facie case, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction, particularly given the applicant's history of vexatious allegations against the respondent and the availability of other income sources.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, former insurance advisors affiliated with a large financial services company, sought payment of monthly “CORe” commissions following termination of their advisory agreements.

The agreements provided that post‑termination commissions would cease if the advisor advised, counselled, or induced clients to replace or cancel policies serviced through the company.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs breached those conditions by soliciting and transitioning hundreds of clients and significant assets to a competing business after termination.

The court held that CORe payments were conditional incentives rather than vested compensation and found that the plaintiffs had engaged in systematic replacement activities contrary to the agreements.

Relief from forfeiture and equitable claims such as quantum meruit were rejected, and the action was dismissed.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $225,000 in damages arising from an asset purchase agreement, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought $172,362 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer did not comply with Rule 49 as it was made only three days before trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $80,000 after finding the hours claimed by the plaintiff's counsel were excessive compared to defence counsel.

The applicant son sought to have the deceased's pre-death transfer of the family home to her husband and children clawed back into her estate as a 'gift mortis causa' under s. 72(1)(a) of the Succession Law Reform Act, to satisfy his dependent support claim.

The deceased had transferred the property as joint tenants shortly after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was absolute rather than conditional on her death, and noted that the doctrine of donatio mortis causa generally does not apply to real property.

The plaintiff sold her real estate business to the defendants under an Asset Purchase Agreement.

Shortly after the defendants took over operations, two key agents resigned.

The defendants refused to close the transaction, alleging the plaintiff misrepresented the agents' contentedness and failed to provide their employment contracts, but the defendants continued to operate the business.

The court found the defendants breached the agreement, holding that the Entire Agreement clause precluded reliance on any alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations.

The plaintiff was awarded $225,000 in damages, representing the unpaid purchase price and an estimated persistency bonus.

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.

The applicant purchaser sought to void a commercial real estate transaction and recover $5.913 million from the respondent vendor, claiming the vendor failed to provide a copy of an environmental Director's Order prior to closing as required by s. 197 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding on a balance of probabilities that the vendor did provide the order.

Alternatively, the court held that the applicant was estopped from voiding the transaction because its solicitors had represented to the vendor prior to closing that they had no outstanding concerns regarding the receipt of the order.

Following dismissal of a counterclaim after a five‑day trial, the successful defendants by counterclaim sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self‑represented counterclaimant made no submissions on costs despite being given multiple opportunities.

Applying the principle that costs should generally follow the event and must be fair and reasonable, the court found no reason to depart from the “loser pays” rule, particularly where the counterclaim lacked merit and caused unnecessary delay.

The court accepted the reasonableness of the hours claimed by counsel given the length of the trial and circumstances, including wasted court time caused by adjournments sought by the counterclaimant.

Costs were awarded to both successful parties on a partial indemnity basis.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of a motion seeking to add additional defendants under Rules 5.04 and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Proposed defendants sought recovery of their legal costs incurred responding to the unsuccessful motion.

The court assessed the reasonable costs expected for a half‑day motion involving complex issues of privity of contract but reduced the amounts claimed due to unnecessary costs arising from arguments raised or abandoned during earlier proceedings.

The court also considered the absence of responding evidence and the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates.

Costs were awarded to the proposed defendants in reduced amounts.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to add several limited partners of a limited partnership as defendants in an action concerning repayment obligations connected to a promissory note and related agreements.

The proposed amendment alleged that the limited partners were liable through assumption agreements tied to the limited partnership’s debt obligations.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had a tenable cause of action based on privity of contract or under Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permitting claims against limited partners.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked privity of contract with the limited partners and that Rule 8 is procedural and does not create substantive liability for limited partners.

As the proposed claims were clearly impossible of success, the motion to amend was dismissed.