Jeffrey Larry

The applicants sought a declaration that a 2001 easement and restrictive covenant registered on title to a former golf course prohibited the respondent from developing the lands for residential use.

The respondent argued the covenant only protected storm water management access and did not prevent development.

The court applied contract interpretation principles and found the plain language of the restrictive covenant, read in context, constituted a complete prohibition on building structures on the golf course lands.

By operation of the Land Titles Act, the covenant was deemed to expire 40 years after registration, prohibiting residential development until 2041.

The moving parties, representing U.S. class action claimants, sought leave to appeal a supervising judge's order in a CCAA proceeding.

The supervising judge had dismissed their motion seeking to be treated as unaffected creditors or to have an expedited adjudication of their claims prior to a creditor vote.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and did not raise issues of significance to the insolvency practice.

The Court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a CCAA supervising judge's discretionary decisions balancing stakeholder interests.

Roger Poirier (appellant) sued multiple defendants for fraud and misrepresentation related to a failed business investment.

He settled his claim with one defendant, Jerry Friedberg, but failed to disclose this settlement to the other defendants for six months.

The motion judge stayed the action against the remaining defendants, finding the non-disclosure to be an abuse of process.

Poirier appealed, arguing the motion judge applied an incorrect legal test and made palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that immediate disclosure of settlement agreements that fundamentally alter the litigation landscape is mandatory, and failure to do so constitutes an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings, regardless of prejudice to the non-settling parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Penny J. dated January 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment order where the motion judge found that a personal guarantee was a continuing guarantee applicable to a subsequent amended loan agreement.

The appellants, the personal guarantors, argued that the guarantee was not continuing and that the latest loan agreement extinguished their obligations.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming that the guarantee was a continuing one and that the liabilities under the final loan agreement were "in connection with" the previous agreement, thereby maintaining the guarantors' liability.

The court also upheld the deferential standard of review for contractual interpretation.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of a $100 million settlement in a class action regarding hidden foreign exchange fees in registered accounts, along with approval of class counsel's legal fees and representative plaintiff honoraria.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable.

However, the court declined to approve the requested $25 million in legal fees based on a straight-line 25% contingency, finding that in a 'mega-fund' settlement, a multiplier and percentage cross-check must be used to avoid a windfall and maintain the integrity of the profession.

The court approved $20 million in legal fees, plus disbursements and taxes, and approved the requested honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed a decision finding it in breach of its commercial lease for leaving the building vacant for almost two years and denying it relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the lease or her discretionary decision to deny relief from forfeiture due to a pattern of non-compliance.

The plaintiff, an accounting firm, brought a motion to compel the non-party Deloitte LLP to produce documents related to two client audits.

The plaintiff alleged that a former partner, now at Deloitte, misused and misappropriated confidential client data upon his departure.

The defendant and Deloitte refused disclosure.

The court applied Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the relevance of the documents to liability and damages, and whether it would be unfair for the plaintiff to proceed without them.

The court found the documents relevant and necessary for the plaintiff's expert, and that the defendant's discovery evidence was inadequate.

Despite Deloitte's confidentiality concerns, the court ordered production, subject to a non-disclosure agreement and sealing order, finding Deloitte was not a "stranger" to the litigation.

This motion concerned the immediate disclosure of a settlement agreement between a plaintiff and one of several co-defendants in a deceit action.

The plaintiff, Roger Poirier, settled with defendant Jerry Friedberg, but failed to immediately disclose the settlement terms to the remaining co-defendants, Jeremy Logan, Hilary Goldstein, and Buchli Goldstein LLP.

The co-defendants brought a motion to dismiss Poirier's action as an abuse of process, arguing that the settlement fundamentally altered the litigation's adversarial orientation.

The court granted the motion, holding that the settlement, which included Friedberg providing an affidavit vetted by plaintiff's counsel, significantly changed the litigation landscape, and the delay in disclosure constituted an abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the action.

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.