John J. Pirie

The plaintiff, having been successful at trial and awarded over $11 million for civil fraud, sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $1.88 million inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The self-represented defendant argued the costs were unreasonable and should be apportioned among settling defendants.

The court considered the complexity of the action, the defendant's conduct in increasing costs, and the limited probative value of the receivership proceedings at trial.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendant at $1.05 million plus taxes for fees and $162,000 for disbursements.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff hospital network contracted with the corporate defendant to purchase 3 million NIOSH certified N95 masks, paying over $13 million upfront.

The corporate defendant, directed by the individual defendant Caridi, delivered KN95 masks instead, which were not NIOSH certified.

The plaintiff sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, oppression, and unjust enrichment.

The court found that Caridi acted recklessly in representing that the corporation could deliver NIOSH certified N95 masks without knowing if it was true.

While the court declined to pierce the corporate veil or grant an oppression remedy, it held Caridi personally liable in tort for deceit because his conduct exhibited a separate personal interest (a 50/50 profit split).

The corporate defendant was also found liable for breach of contract.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of over $800,000 CAD/USD through a fake investment scheme.

The defendants allegedly promised to invest the funds in options, futures, or forex, but instead diverted the funds and ceased communications.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, conspiracy, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, and conversion.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a serious risk of asset dissipation.

This endorsement addresses three motions in an oppression action concerning the Paramount Group, a food services business facing shareholder deadlock.

The plaintiffs (Mohamad Fakih et al.) moved to strike portions of the defendants' counterclaim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and for security for costs.

The defendants (AHM Investments Corporation et al.) moved for compliance with financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor.

The court partially granted the motion to strike due to insufficient particulars of fraud.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, as the counterclaim was inextricably linked to the defence and, at its core, an oppression remedy claim, which is exempt from security for costs under the OBCA.

The defendants' motion for financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor was granted, affirming shareholders' mandatory right to audited financial statements, with the Paramount Group responsible for the audit fees.

The defendants Pöyry brought a motion seeking orders to prohibit "Releasors" from assisting the Litigation Trustee in a Singapore action and declaring that the Litigation Trustee breached a court-approved settlement agreement by pursuing claims against Pöyry in Singapore.

Pöyry argued that the Litigation Trust's claims were covered by release and bar order provisions of a prior settlement agreement in the class action.

The Litigation Trust opposed, arguing the motion breached a Standstill Agreement, was barred by res judicata, and that the Ontario court should defer to the Singapore courts on grounds of comity and forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed Pöyry's motion, accepting the forum non conveniens arguments.

It declined to provide an opinion or interpret its own settlement orders for the Singapore court, emphasizing that the Singapore court was the appropriate forum to determine the effect of the Pöyry Settlement Agreement and the Ontario court's orders on the Singapore action.

An appeal and cross-appeal concerning a contractual dispute between two friends and their respective companies regarding an employment agreement.

The trial judge found that an oral employment agreement was reached in October 2003 between Mark Couper and Vitaquest International LLC, and that Vitaquest repudiated the agreement in early March 2005.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's finding that Couper was entitled to damages equivalent to base pay for the period October 2003 to March 2005.

The respondent cross-appealed on the issue of whether he was entitled to a US$5 million payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings.