Jordan Bryan Goldblatt

The moving parties, Wrestling Canada Lutte, Tamara Medwidsky, and Lee Mackay, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of K. A. Jensen J. dated May 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

Samine LLC, the successful respondent in a prior appeal, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Samine requested $7,000, while the appellants, Digital Shovel Holdings Inc. and Scot Johnson (DSHI), proposed $5,192.92.

The court found Samine's requested amount reasonable, proportionate, and within the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectation, especially when compared to the time spent by DSHI's own counsel on the appeal.

The court awarded Samine LLC the full amount of $7,000 in costs.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision that allowed the respondent to amend its statement of claim to include a new cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellants argued the new claim was statute-barred.

The Associate Judge had found a discoverability issue that warranted leaving the limitation period determination to trial or summary judgment.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming that where a factual dispute exists regarding discoverability, amendments to pleadings should generally be allowed, and the limitation defence can be pleaded and determined at a later stage.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision.

The Superior Court of Justice heard motions and cross-motions arising from four identical actions.

The primary motion was brought by the plaintiffs' lawyers (the "Lawyers") to strike counterclaims asserted against them by the defendants by counterclaim (the "Lenders").

The Lenders' counterclaims alleged conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations, and champerty and maintenance, and they sought to add a new claim for breach of privacy/misappropriation of confidential information.

The court dismissed the Lenders' motion for leave to tender evidence and granted the Lawyers' motion, striking the counterclaims in their entirety without leave to amend, finding that the claims against the Lawyers were untenable at law and contrary to public policy.

The defendants, RepVisor Portfolio Systems Inc. et al., brought a motion seeking $100,000 (later reduced to $81,000) in security for costs from the plaintiff, Ian McLean, in his capacity as Trustee of the JSL Trust.

The moving parties argued that the plaintiff was a nominal plaintiff and lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential costs award.

The plaintiff countered that he was not a nominal plaintiff, possessed sufficient assets, and that section 249(3) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) provided immunity from posting security for costs for oppression remedies.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff, as a trustee with fiduciary duties, was not a nominal plaintiff, and the moving parties failed to demonstrate insufficient assets.

Furthermore, the court noted that the action, in substance, was an oppression remedy, which weighs against ordering security for costs under the OBCA.

The plaintiff was awarded $5,000 in costs.

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment and to strike portions of a Statement of Claim.

The Plaintiffs, a corporation and its principal, sued for breach of contract after their independent contractor agreement was terminated.

The Defendants sought to strike the claim for wrongful termination and other allegations, arguing compliance with the contract's notice provision and irrelevance of other pleaded facts.

The court found that the termination claim had no reasonable prospect of success as proper notice was given.

It also struck claims against individual defendants due to privity of contract and ordered the removal of scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious allegations, including those related to defamation, the organization's history, and a Ministry of Labour investigation.

However, the court allowed the claim for breach of the contract's dispute resolution clause to proceed, granting leave for the Plaintiffs to amend their pleading to properly articulate this claim and associated aggravated and punitive damages, and to establish the principal's standing as a party.

Money Gate Corporation (MGC) brought a motion for an extension of time to file its notice of appeal and a declaration that it had an appeal as of right under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), or alternatively for leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The underlying matter involved a receivership where a motion judge had dismissed MGC's claim for payment from the proceeds of a property sale, finding no valid assignment of a second mortgage and that MGC was not the registered owner.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time, finding MGC's grounds of appeal not frivolous and no real prejudice to the responding parties.

Crucially, the court declared that MGC had an appeal as of right under s. 193(c) of the BIA, concluding that the motion judge's order finally determined MGC's economic interests in the property proceeds, distinguishing it from a mere priorities dispute.

This class action motion sought approval of a proposed settlement and class counsel fees concerning denied travel insurance claims by TD Home and Auto Insurance Company during the early COVID-19 pandemic, specifically regarding denials based on the availability of non-monetary compensation (credits/vouchers).

The parties reached a settlement of $5.1 million, with $4.8 million available for class members.

The settlement provides $100 for cash-refunded claims and at least 40% of the value for non-cash-refunded claims, allowing class members to retain travel credits.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class, noting the risks of litigation and the absence of objections.

Class counsel's request for fees, based on a 21.5% contingency rate (reduced to 17% for the class after defendant's contribution), was also approved as fair and reasonable, proportionate to the settlement size, and reflecting the work and risks undertaken.

This motion concerned an application by 2524991 Ontario Corporation (252) for an interim order to stay the enforcement of an arbitral award (the Final Award) obtained by 2650795 Ontario Inc. (265), pending the resolution of an oppression action brought by 252 against 265. 252 argued that 265 engaged in oppressive acts by refusing to cooperate in the sale of a jointly owned property, which would allow 252 to satisfy the Final Award.

The court granted judgment in the Enforcement Application by consent but then heard 252's motion to stay.

The court found that allowing enforcement would be oppressive and an abuse of process, and that 252 met the stringent test for a stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for interim relief under s. 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act.

The court also determined that the "clean hands" doctrine did not apply as the impugned conduct (misrepresentation) was already litigated and compensated in arbitration.

The stay was granted, without prejudice to a future application for a court-directed sale of the property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a property acquired by a partnership for development.

The parties disagreed on the partnership agreement's interpretation after a zoning application was refused.

The court found a triable issue regarding an interest in land but declined to exercise its discretion to grant the CPL, noting the property was not unique, was acquired for investment, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff sued her mortgagee, its realtors, the purchasers, and the mortgagee's lawyer, alleging an improvident sale of her property under a power of sale.

The defendant lawyer moved to strike the claim against him under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the elements of unlawful act conspiracy, specifically failing to plead an unlawful act or that the lawyer's conduct was directed at her rather than simply advancing his client's interests.

The claim against the lawyer was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory injunctive relief and a certificate of pending litigation was dismissed.

The defendants and non-party Project Companies sought costs.

The plaintiffs opposed an award of costs or argued for a reduced amount, but failed to provide their own costs outline.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments to deny costs or defer them to the trial judge.

Applying the principle that an attack on costs without providing one's own dockets is an 'attack in the air,' the court found the claimed amounts reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs of $65,000 to the defendants and $39,000 to the Project Companies.

The plaintiffs were granted a worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendant following allegations of a $2.8 million fraudulent transfer.

The court considered the appropriate costs order for the successful interlocutory motion.

Applying the principle that costs of an interlocutory injunction should generally be reserved to the trial judge to avoid injustice if the plaintiff ultimately fails, the court ordered costs of the motion to be in the cause.

The employee was constructively dismissed from her position as Chief Operating Officer after requesting a salary increase.

The employer alleged cause but later withdrew the defence, though it continued to assert performance issues throughout the litigation.

The motion judge awarded 12 months' notice, $50,000 in aggravated damages for bad faith in the manner of dismissal, and $25,000 in punitive damages for reprehensible litigation conduct.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the notice period and the aggravated and punitive damages awards, but reduced the damages in lieu of notice to six months' compensation because the employee had unreasonably rejected a comparable job offer seven months post-termination.

The plaintiff vendor and defendant purchaser cross-moved for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The vendor claimed the purchaser anticipatorily breached the agreement based on third-hand information about the purchaser's lack of funds and a request for a closing extension, and thus the vendor did not tender on closing day.

The court held that third-party information and requests for extensions do not constitute anticipatory breach.

Because there was no anticipatory breach, the vendor was required to tender to preserve her rights.

The vendor's action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an omnibus motion for certification, settlement approval, notice approval, discontinuance against one defendant, and class counsel fee approval in a proposed class action regarding cancelled educational trips due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants, travel insurers, agreed to pay 100% of the claims submitted by the class members.

The court granted certification for settlement purposes, approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, approved the notice plan nunc pro tunc, allowed the discontinuance against Arch Insurance, and approved class counsel fees of $435,000 to be paid by the defendants in addition to the class compensation.

The plaintiff, a newly formed lacrosse league, sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the defendant's regulations that penalized players for participating in competing leagues.

The plaintiff argued the regulations constituted intentional interference with economic relations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the defendant was merely enforcing long-standing rules and not intentionally targeting the plaintiff.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendant, as suspending the rules would destabilize its established organization.

The appellants sought to overturn a motion judge's decision to dismiss their action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The underlying action concerned a mortgage whose validity had been previously decided.

The Court of Appeal found the action, which included 40 causes of action in a 300-page statement of claim, to be plainly vexatious and an abuse of process, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs sought to further extend a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a multi-million dollar fraud.

Defendant Yahya Dikeni Hashiru, director of Spotless Consultancy Inc., moved to vacate or vary the injunction, claiming he was merely a middleman facilitating a legitimate investment.

The court found Mr. Hashiru's explanation lacked credibility, particularly given his transfers of funds after being aware of the injunction.

Applying the five-step test for a Mareva injunction, the court found a strong prima facie case against Mr. Hashiru and a clear risk of asset dissipation.

The Mareva injunction was extended until further order of the court, and Mr. Hashiru's motion to vacate or vary was dismissed.

The court dismissed two motions seeking to consolidate other proceedings with a main action scheduled for trial.

The first motion, brought by the defendants, sought to consolidate the main action with a separate claim against former employees for breach of fiduciary duty (the "Brampton action").

The second motion, brought by 320 Bronte Road Inc., sought to consolidate its newly commenced action (alleging misconduct by the plaintiffs) and the Brampton action with the main proceeding.

The court found that the issues in the various proceedings were distinct, and consolidation would cause significant delays to the fixed trial date.

It concluded that any theoretical benefits of judicial economy or avoiding inconsistent findings were outweighed by the practical concerns of delay and managing unwieldy, disparate claims.

The court also criticized 320 Bronte Road Inc. for failing to follow proper Commercial List scheduling protocols.