Jeffrey Larry

The appellants, a terminated insurance agent and his company, appealed the dismissal of their claim against Sun Life for post-termination commissions under the Commissions on Release (CORe) program.

The CORe agreements stipulated that payments would cease if the agent induced clients to replace their policies.

The appellant transferred over 600 clients to a new business, prompting Sun Life to terminate the payments.

The Court of Appeal held that the termination clause was an enforceable forfeiture provision, not a penalty, and that the appellants were not entitled to equitable relief from forfeiture given their flagrant breach of the agreement.

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.

Investors who were customers of a bank alleged negligence after advancing funds to entities engaged in a cheque‑kiting scheme whose accounts had been frozen by the bank.

They claimed the bank knew of the fraudulent activity and failed to disclose material information during communications with them, while applying the advanced funds to reduce the fraudster’s indebtedness to the bank.

The bank moved under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the negligence claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Applying the Anns/Cooper framework and the test on motions to strike, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

Given the pleaded bank‑customer relationship and alleged communications between the bank and its customers, the negligence claim was at least analogous to recognized categories of proximity.

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.

The plaintiff by counterclaim alleged that his brokerage and stockbroker made unauthorized trades in his margin account involving highly risky derivative securities during a period of extreme market volatility, causing substantial losses and forcing him to sign a promissory note.

The court examined the relationship between a broker and client and whether a fiduciary duty arose.

The evidence showed the account was non‑discretionary, the investor was knowledgeable, and the trades were executed on the client’s instructions.

The court found the investor’s testimony not credible and concluded that the losses resulted from authorized trading decisions during volatile market conditions.

The brokerage and broker breached no contractual, fiduciary, or regulatory duties.

The applicants, a group of companies owned by Dondeb Inc., sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to enable an orderly liquidation of their assets.

The application was opposed by approximately 75% of the secured creditors, who argued for individual receiverships due to a lack of confidence in the applicants' principal and the burden of CCAA administrative costs.

The court dismissed the CCAA application, finding it unlikely that a successful plan could be developed and approved by the creditors.

Instead, the court issued a Global Receivership Order, which was supported by the opposing creditors, to achieve an orderly liquidation at a lower cost.

In a complex Commercial List case management proceeding involving multiple condominium corporations, lenders, and other parties arising from alleged fraud related to loans arranged for condominium corporations, the court addressed whether a previously scheduled separate hearing of a threshold issue should proceed.

The threshold issue concerned whether certain loans were enforceable against the condominium corporations.

Several parties withdrew their earlier consent to bifurcate the proceedings under Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, absent unanimous consent, it lacked jurisdiction to compel a separate hearing of the threshold issue and therefore cancelled the proposed hearing.

The court instead directed that the actions proceed expeditiously to a consolidated trial with a structured discovery process and encouraged mediation.

The applicants, who invested approximately $15 million in the respondent companies, sought the appointment of a receiver following defaults on loans and breaches of a forbearance agreement.

The respondents had agreed to the appointment of a monitor and provided consents to a receivership held in escrow, but subsequently failed to provide the monitor with unfettered access to financial records, delayed adding the monitor as a bank signatory, and made preferential payments to the principal's family members.

The court found that the respondents materially breached the forbearance agreement and side letter, making it just and convenient under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act to appoint a receiver over all three respondent companies.

Following certification of a class proceeding concerning foreign exchange transactions in registered accounts, the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle made prior to the certification motion.

The defendants argued the outcome of the certification motion was less favourable than the offer and disputed the amount of fees and disbursements claimed.

The court held that the result of the certification motion was as favourable as the plaintiffs’ offer within the meaning of Rule 49.10 and that the defendants’ objections were overly technical.

Certain fees and disbursements were reduced, but the court concluded the remaining amounts were fair and reasonable in light of the work required for the certification motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded from the date of the offer to settle.

The applicant, an orthodontist, was defrauded of $450,000 by his lawyer under the guise of short-term bridge financing.

The lawyer used the funds to pay off other clients, the respondents, whose trust funds he had also misappropriated.

The applicant brought an action against the respondents seeking the return of the funds, arguing they received the money knowing or being wilfully blind to the fraud.

The court found that the respondents and their lawyer had no duty to inquire about the source of the funds when they received them, as they believed it was a bona fide repayment of a loan.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a proposed class action against the defendants regarding foreign currency conversions in registered accounts.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants charged undisclosed, unnecessary, and unauthorized foreign exchange fees when converting foreign currency to Canadian dollars in RRSPs and other registered accounts.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all five criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including disclosing causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Multiple condominium corporations brought motions under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay of proceedings following the bankruptcy of a property manager and his company.

The underlying actions alleged fraudulent mortgage loans and fraudulent overcharging in condominium management contracts.

The court held that the claims involved issues of fraud, complex contingent debts, and disputes requiring full adjudication with multiple parties, making the bankruptcy claims process inadequate.

The court lifted the statutory stays to allow four existing civil actions to continue and permitted a lender to commence two related actions, ordering that all six proceedings be case-managed together on the Commercial List.

The court also imposed terms limiting costs recovery against the bankrupt estates prior to discharge.

The appellants appealed an order confirming a Master's report that awarded compound interest on the respondent's lost profits from misappropriated trust property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Master's discretionary decision to award compound interest.

The Court noted that in cases of wrongfully misappropriated trust property, it is open to the court to presume the injured party is entitled to compound interest, and the appellants failed to adduce evidence to rebut this presumption.