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.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding refusals on cross-examinations in a proposed class action.

The plaintiff's motion for refusals was largely dismissed, while the Solart defendants' cross-motion regarding the plaintiff's refusals was allowed.

The court considered various factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct." While the plaintiff's counsel's conduct was deemed unreasonable, it did not generally meet this high threshold, except in the case of Martin Yockell, where class counsel's conduct during cross-examination was found to be reprehensible, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The court also addressed the recoverability of costs for pro bono counsel and costs thrown away.

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.

The appellant, a minority shareholder in a family holding company, appealed the dismissal of her application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

She sought a court-ordered sale of her shares to her brothers after they rejected her offer to sell and she was unable to find a third-party purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of liquidity for her shares and that her interests as a shareholder were not unfairly disregarded.

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.

This costs endorsement followed a successful application for the appointment of a receiver/manager, recognition of share entitlement, and transfer of a mortgage interest.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were justified against two respondents because their litigation conduct, including non-compliance with a consent order, provision of false information, and misuse of corporate assets, was reprehensible.

A third respondent, while unsuccessful, was ordered to pay only partial indemnity costs because the misconduct of the principal actor could not be attributed to her personally.

The court also reduced the fees claimed as excessive and disproportionate, but allowed substantial BDO investigation accounts as disbursements against the two culpable respondents.

The applicants sought broad interim and substantive relief arising from alleged diversion of corporate funds, oppressive conduct, and disputed ownership interests in two related companies holding and operating a commercial self-storage business.

The court found the principal respondent's evidence not credible, accepted evidence that substantial corporate funds had been removed for personal use, and held that appointment of a receiver-manager over one corporation was just and convenient under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and appropriate under the oppression remedy in s. 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act.

The court also declared that one applicant remained entitled to 50% of the issued shares of the corporation and ordered transfer of the Dura Mortgage to that applicant.

Requests for immediate separation of the related company, debt judgment, and restitutionary judgments were dismissed as premature or unsupported at this stage, without prejudice where specified.

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 leave to appeal an interlocutory order that consolidated his application for the sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act with ongoing oppression remedy actions involving his former business associates.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the consolidation order, as the property dispute was sufficiently connected to the broader business dispute, and the matter was not of general importance.

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.

The respondent employer requested to defer the human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the outcome of the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint against her union at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that deferral might be appropriate later if the OLRB proceeding results in access to the grievance process.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene in the application.

The appellant sued the respondents for unlawful interference with economic relations, alleging that the respondents' bundling of accounting and TPA services contravened the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

The action was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

On appeal, the appellant argued the limitation period did not begin until the Professional Conduct Committee issued its disposition on the appellant's complaint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant knew sufficient material facts to base its allegations well before the committee's disposition, and the discovery of the committee's opinion did not restart the limitation period.

The appellant commenced an application for oppression relief under the Canada Business Corporations Act, supported by an affidavit from an individual who lacked direct knowledge and was unavailable for cross-examination.

When the appellant attempted to substitute the affidavit after the respondents had filed their responding materials, the motions judge struck the application as an abuse of process, with leave to re-introduce it upon payment of costs thrown away.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge was entitled to infer prejudice and properly exercised his discretion.