John Chapman

The appellants appealed an order denying an injunction to prevent the sale of a property.

The parties had agreed on the form of the order, which included a paragraph that appeared to be a final determination on the authority of the majority to sell the property.

The Court of Appeal noted that the motion judge's reasons did not amount to a final determination of this issue, and counsel agreed it remained a live issue for trial.

The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of striking out the paragraph that appeared to be a final order, while maintaining the denial of the injunction.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant was awarded $20,000 in costs, subject to a reduction for an unsuccessful appeal regarding two U.S. companies and the unsatisfactory nature of the statement of claim.

The two U.S. respondents were awarded costs of $5,856.53 and $500, respectively.

The appellant, who had been discharged from bankruptcy, was denied credit because the respondent credit reporting agencies allegedly included statute-barred debts in his credit report contrary to the Consumer Reporting Act.

The appellant brought a proposed class action in negligence.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding policy reasons against recognizing a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the Canadian respondents, holding that a prima facie duty of care exists based on proximity and foreseeability, analogous to negligent misrepresentation, and that policy considerations do not make it plain and obvious that the claim should be struck at this stage.

The claims against the American parent companies were struck for failing to plead sufficient material facts.

The appellants, a corporation and its chairman, appealed a Divisional Court order permitting the respondent to amend its statement of claim.

The amendments sought to add claims for intentional interference with economic relations and conspiracy to injure against the chairman personally.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

It struck the claim for intentional interference because the respondent failed to plead the requisite unlawful means.

However, the Court permitted the conspiracy to injure claim to proceed, holding that it was not plain and obvious at the pleadings stage that the Said v. Butt exception—which protects corporate officers acting bona fide in the company's interests—would immunize the chairman from personal liability.