John P. Ormston

The court considered competing claims to an investment property in Toronto, where the applicant sought partition and sale and the respondent claimed the applicant held her 50% interest in trust for him.

The court found the respondent’s trust claim statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as he had notice of the applicant’s beneficial ownership since at least 1995.

The court also found that, even if not statute-barred, the trust claim would fail on the merits because the applicant made no financial contribution to the purchase or mortgage.

The court granted partition and sale, an accounting, and division of net income since September 20, 2021.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by various defendants during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for a certification motion.

The Solart defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions he refused during his cross-examination.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the questions posed to the defendants were irrelevant, unanswerable, or sought legal opinions.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend and answer questions related to the common issues, as they were relevant to testing the certification requirements.

The applicants invested funds into a business enterprise intended to operate an entertainment complex out of a leased heritage building.

The corporate structure was never formalized, and the funds were advanced directly to the tenant corporation.

The principal of the tenant subsequently locked the applicants out of the premises and refused to provide corporate or financial records.

The applicants brought an oppression remedy application.

The court found that although the applicants were not direct shareholders of the tenant, they were proper complainants as beneficial owners of the business enterprise.

The court held that the respondents' conduct defeated the applicants' reasonable expectations and ordered disclosure, an accounting, and tracing of funds, while adjourning requests for operational control and a buyout to a trial of issues.

Following a largely unsuccessful motion by the plaintiff to amend his claim and add defendants in a putative class action, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Independent Electrical System Operator ($24,000), the Solart-associated entities ($12,500), Melanie Lacroix ($2,500), and Sunny Natalia ($2,500).

The court declined to award the plaintiff costs against the unsuccessful respondent Nikhil Toshniwal regarding the unopposed document service relief.

The plaintiff in a putative class action regarding unfulfilled solar panel installation contracts brought a motion to amend the statement of claim, add 17 new defendants (including the IESO), and extend the time for service on several existing defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to add the IESO and 15 Solart-associated entities, finding the claims against them were statute-barred as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims more than two years prior.

The court partially granted leave to amend the claim against existing defendants, striking certain proposed paragraphs that improperly pleaded evidence or lacked material facts.

The court granted the extension of time for service on several defendants, finding no actual prejudice to the defence.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' oppression action in a family-owned business shareholder dispute, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $333,872.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' counsel spent excessive hours and suggested a costs award of $267,098.

The court found the defendants' costs were high but acknowledged the significant resources required to defend the litigation.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $275,000 and declined the defendants' request to deduct the award from the plaintiffs' future dividend payments.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder in a closely held family business, sought an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, requesting a court-ordered sale of her shares to her brothers and the corporate entity.

She argued that the defendants' refusal to purchase her shares, coupled with a lack of a third-party market and irreconcilable differences, constituted oppressive conduct, and also challenged the corporation's dividend policy.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff did not have a reasonable expectation of liquidity for her shares, as the shareholders' agreement did not mandate a buyout and her minority interest inherently had limited liquidity.

The court also found no unfairness in the dividend policy, noting the brothers' active roles and separate shareholdings.

The oppression remedy was not designed to provide an exit strategy for a minority shareholder in the absence of actual oppressive or unfair conduct.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and a maintenance reserve, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants were entirely successful on the contentious issues and were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in an aircraft charter business, brought a motion for interim relief pending trial of their oppression action.

They sought an injunction restraining the defendants from leasing aircraft below market rates, an order establishing a maintenance reserve for a specific aircraft, and monthly production of financial and flight records.

The court dismissed the requests for injunctive relief and the maintenance reserve, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the corporations to make business decisions pending trial.

On consent, the court ordered quarterly production of financial and flight records.

Multiple tobacco manufacturer defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $300,000 after withdrawing previously scheduled motions to strike the Crown’s statement of claim in a health care cost recovery action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

The defendants argued they were the successful parties because their motions prompted extensive amendments to the pleading and that the Crown delayed notifying them of its intention to amend.

The court held that the amendments addressed only some of the alleged deficiencies and that significant legal issues remained unresolved when the defendants chose to withdraw the motions.

As a result, success on the motions was considered divided.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The applicant sought an order under the Partition Act compelling the sale of jointly held commercial property.

The respondents resisted, arguing that broader litigation between the parties concerning their business relationship and compensation was already underway and was inextricably connected to the ownership and financial treatment of the property.

The court held that although co‑owners generally have a prima facie right to compel partition or sale, such relief should not be granted where related disputes affecting entitlement remain to be determined.

Because the property formed part of wider disputes over compensation and corporate interests among former business associates, the court concluded that determining the sale issue in isolation would be inappropriate.

The application was consolidated with the existing actions so the property issue could be resolved alongside the broader disputes.

Following an application related to enforcement of contractual obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Courts of Justice Act, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought recovery of their legal costs pursuant to a contractual provision requiring the respondents to pay all enforcement costs, including interest.

The court accepted that such provisions create a prima facie entitlement to costs but emphasized that the ultimate costs award remains discretionary under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents’ request for substantial indemnity costs was rejected.

The court directed that a full bill of costs or dockets be provided before fixing the final costs amount.