John R. Hart

The plaintiff, a judgment creditor, brought an action for oppression and fraudulent conveyance against the corporate debtor, a newly formed successor corporation, and their sole director.

The director had transferred the debtor's business and assets to the new corporation to avoid paying a Wisconsin judgment and an Ontario costs order.

The court found the conduct oppressive and the transfer a fraudulent conveyance, piercing the corporate veil to hold the director personally liable alongside the successor corporation for the judgment debt.

Following a successful defence motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $42,000.

The court accepted that elevated costs were justified due to the plaintiff’s nearly twenty‑year failure to advance the litigation.

However, the court found the defendants’ bill of costs inadequately detailed and the claimed amount excessive.

Balancing the plaintiff’s unexplained delay against the insufficient cost justification, the court fixed a reduced substantial indemnity award.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that there was consideration to support the agreement.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the Crown's appeal from an order quashing search warrants obtained under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the appeal was moot because the Crown had made a deliberate choice not to execute the impugned warrants to keep the trial process moving.

The court also held that the ancillary costs order could not sustain the moot appeal.

The appeal was quashed in its entirety.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to the Divisional Court.

The OMB had dismissed a joint motion to dismiss a draft plan of subdivision without a hearing, finding it had jurisdiction despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision because it failed to apply principles of statutory interpretation regarding vested rights and jurisdiction.

The court also found the issue of the OMB's jurisdiction in light of collateral statutory amendments to be of sufficient public importance.

The appellant bailiff appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for selling the respondent's tools and materials without notice under the Repair and Storage Liens Act after locking the respondent out of commercial premises for rent arrears.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking damages based on full replacement cost rather than actual value.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on liability, the measure of damages, or the determination that the claim was not statute-barred.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they did not have a substantial interest in a property.

The Court of Appeal held that even considering the appellants' $130,000 equity in the property, they could not show the requisite substantial interest.

Combined with the absence of persuasive evidence of alternative funding, the application judge correctly concluded there were no special circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that all essential terms of the 'clean break' scenario were settled by June 16, 2003.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a supplementary endorsement amending a previous endorsement.

The appeal by the appellant Thomson was allowed, the summary judgment against him was set aside, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis and the costs of the motion below at $40,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment finding that a co-defendant held monies in trust for the respondent.

The motion judge had concluded that 75% of the sale price of products remained the property of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the agreement merely created a contractual obligation to pay 75% of the invoiced amount, with the co-defendant assuming the risk of non-payment.

The lack of a requirement to segregate funds further negated the existence of a trust.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment against the appellant was set aside, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.