Jocelyn Howell

Following a successful appeal against the respondent Samir Chhina, the self-represented appellants sought costs of $35,000 for the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued the appellants failed to establish they had forgone remunerative activity to justify a fee allowance.

The Court of Appeal agreed the appellants did not meet their evidentiary onus but awarded a lump sum of $10,000 all-inclusive for costs of the motion and the appeal.

The appellants appealed an order striking their claims against a mortgage brokerage and a lawyer under Rule 21.01.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the brokerage, finding no factual connection pleaded.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the lawyer, holding that the motion judge erred in finding the lawyer immune from liability for allegedly participating in a fraud while acting on client instructions, and erred in concluding the claim was barred by res judicata without sufficient evidence that the same cause of action was previously argued.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a proposed class action for delay under section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act and Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, commenced in 2016, involved allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and other claims against the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and co-defendants.

The court found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements of section 29.1(1)(a) by filing a final and complete certification motion record and section 29.1(1)(c) as the court had established a timetable for advancing the proceeding.

While the overall delay of over eight years was deemed inordinate, it was found to be excusable, largely due to the defendants' own strategic delays in prosecuting their dismissal motion and their refusal to proceed with the certification motion concurrently.

The court also found no actual prejudice to the defendants' ability to have a fair trial.

Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

Following a trial where the plaintiff employer was awarded $537,885 in compensatory damages for an employee's fraudulent kickback scheme, the plaintiff sought supplementary orders for a constructive trust over the employee's property and punitive damages.

The court granted a constructive trust, finding a direct link between the stolen funds and the property, but stayed the order for 30 days to allow the defendant to pay the judgment.

The court also awarded $200,000 in punitive damages, emphasizing the need for deterrence and denunciation of employee theft.

This trial decision addresses a claim by Sunwing Airlines Inc. against a former employee, Amilcar Mora, alleging his involvement in a kickback scheme.

Sunwing contended that Mora received over $500,000 in kickbacks from a Cuban contractor, Sylvie Leduc, between 2012 and 2017.

Mora denied the allegations and brought a wrongful dismissal counterclaim.

The court primarily focused on witness credibility, finding Sunwing's witnesses credible and Mora and a co-defendant, Sonya Sekulic, not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimony and documentary evidence.

The court found that Mora was involved in the kickback scheme and that Sunwing had just cause for his termination.

The appellant, OZ Merchandising Inc., appealed the dismissal of its action for negligence and intentional interference with economic interests against several soccer associations.

It also sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that OZ Merchandising failed to prove duty of care, breach, or damages for negligence, and failed to prove intent, unlawful act, or damages for intentional interference.

The court also dismissed allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias (personal, institutional, and ethnic).

Leave to appeal the costs order was granted, but the costs appeal was also dismissed, affirming the substantial indemnity costs awarded against OZ Merchandising and personal costs against its president, Mr. Sezerman, due to his control over the litigation and egregious conduct.

In the context of a shareholder proxy fight, the applicants sought an order declaring the dissident shareholders' proxy circulars materially misleading and invalidating their proxies.

The dissident shareholders brought a motion seeking to hold the upcoming shareholders meeting virtually and to appoint an independent chair.

The court dismissed the application, finding the circulars were not materially misleading.

The court allowed the motion in part, refusing to mandate a purely virtual meeting but appointing the dissidents' proposed independent chair after finding the applicants deliberately breached a prior court order by unilaterally appointing their own chair.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement regarding alleged securities misrepresentations by Colt Resources, Inc. The court approved the $950,000 settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the statutory liability limits under the Securities Act.

The court also approved the Plan of Allocation, the notice plan, a $5,000 honorarium for each representative plaintiff due to their exceptional efforts in initiating the claim, and class counsel fees of $300,000 plus disbursements.

The applicant's employer was investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant was summoned to give evidence but refused to answer questions about their employment, citing a confidentiality clause in their employment agreement.

The applicant applied for directions and a declaration that the information was privileged.

The Commission cross-applied for declarations that the applicant must answer the questions.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the cross-application, finding that the information did not meet the Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege and that the applicant was required to attend the examination and answer all relevant questions, subject only to valid claims of privilege.

The defendant, a blogger reporting on municipal affairs, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, a former municipal administrator, sued over blog posts alleging he was dishonest and incompetent.

The court found the posts related to a matter of public interest but concluded the defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendant's defences could reasonably be rejected.

The court held that the harm to the plaintiff's reputation and employability outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, and dismissed the motion.

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 moving party, Peter Grivogiannis, sought a permanent stay of a third-party claim brought by Pamela Downward, or in the alternative, an order for discovery from Rajan Kaushal.

The motion was based on the alleged non-disclosure of a settlement between Pamela Downward and Rajan Kaushal in the third-party claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement did not significantly alter the litigation landscape and that the non-disclosure was due to inadvertence rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.