Jordan V. Katz

The plaintiff, 2724050 Ontario Inc., brought a motion seeking the appointment of an inspector under section 161 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) to investigate the defendants, BAS Sports Group Inc., Reid Acton, and Bob Acton Sports Ltd. The defendants opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for the appointment of a business valuator.

The court found that the parties had irreconcilable differences and needed to separate.

The plaintiff's motion for an inspector was dismissed, as the court found no prima facie evidence of oppression or deceit by the defendants, and noted the plaintiff's "unclean hands" due to non-payment of purchase price instalments and deceptive use of the "Beast" brand for their own separate business.

The defendants' cross-motion for a business valuator was granted, with the court ordering a valuation under section 207 of the OBCA to determine the fair market value of the shares.

The appellant, Anjanette Passmore, appealed a Superior Court judgment granting summary judgment in favour of the City of Hamilton, dismissing her claim against the City.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to apply the established principles for partial summary judgment, which is appropriate only in rare circumstances.

The court noted that granting partial summary judgment in this case did not result in efficiencies, as the issue was raised late in the proceedings and required adjudication of the same issues and evidence as would be required at trial against the remaining defendants.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to the Superior Court of Justice for trial.

The appellants, Tyson Rogerson and his adoptive parents, appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against two physicians, Dr. Elyse Savaria and Dr. Nkiruka Nwebube.

The appellants argued that the physicians breached their duty of care by failing to report a suspected risk of harm to Tyson to the Children's Aid Society (CAS) under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act, which they contended would have prevented Tyson's catastrophic brain injury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the physicians did not breach the standard of care in failing to report, and even if there was a breach, the appellants failed to prove causation, as the CAS would not have intervened in a way that would have prevented the injury.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants, Saad Aljabri and Mohammed Aljabri, to produce law firm trust ledgers and to answer certain questions from examinations.

The court held that trust ledgers are presumptively protected by solicitor-client privilege and that the plaintiffs failed to rebut this presumption.

The court further concluded that the "crime/fraud" exception to solicitor-client privilege does not apply to civil wrongs, including civil fraud, following the principle of horizontal stare decisis.

Consequently, the motion to compel production of trust ledgers was dismissed.

The motion to compel Mohammed Aljabri to answer undertakings and other questions was allowed, subject to redactions for privileged information in bank statements.

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 Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for contempt against Mr. Sutharsan for breaching a 2021 injunction that prohibited him from providing unauthorized legal services.

Mr. Sutharsan consented to the contempt order, and the matter proceeded to a penalty hearing.

The LSO sought 30 days incarceration.

The court, applying the five-factor test for civil contempt sanctions, found Mr. Sutharsan remorseful and his breaches not egregious enough to warrant incarceration.

The court imposed a penalty of 100 hours of community service and ordered Mr. Sutharsan to pay $6,000 in costs to the LSO, payable at $300 per month.

The defendants (Moving Parties) sought an order for the issuance of two letters of request to judicial authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to compel the examination of two witnesses, Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan and Fahad Nasser Alarfaj.

The Moving Parties argued these witnesses had relevant evidence for their motion to set aside Mareva orders, particularly regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the plaintiffs (controlled by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund) in this action versus unrelated U.S. litigation (LIV Golf Litigation) concerning PIF's independence from the KSA government.

The motion was unopposed by the plaintiffs.

The court found the proposed witnesses had prima facie relevant evidence and that the requirements under Rules 39.03 and 34.07(2) for examining non-parties and issuing letters of request for witnesses outside Canada were met.

The order for letters of request was granted.

This is an appeal from a decision dismissing an action for abuse of process due to the appellant's failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement.

The appellant, Skymark Finance Corporation, entered into Minutes of Settlement with a key defendant, Lorraine Smith, which fundamentally altered the litigation dynamics by changing an adversarial relationship into a cooperative one.

Skymark failed to disclose this agreement for eight months, only doing so after being threatened with an abuse of process motion.

The motion judge stayed the action, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, reiterating the strict obligation for immediate disclosure of such agreements and confirming that the absence of prejudice does not excuse non-compliance.

This decision addresses a request by the respondent (defendant in the original action) to limit the scope of a new trial on liability and damages, which had been ordered by the Court of Appeal in a prior decision.

The court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the evidence and issues were complex, interrelated, and interdependent.

Limiting the trial to specific issues would risk artificial credibility assessments and unreliable fact-finding.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an application to enforce two Letters of Request from a Florida court, directed at David Smith.

The underlying dispute involved allegations of a hate mail campaign orchestrated by Isaac Perlmutter against Harold Peerenboom, with David Smith allegedly involved.

All parties (Isaac and Laura Perlmutter, Harold Peerenboom, and David Smith) sought costs for the Canadian application.

The court found it impossible to meaningfully decide the issue of costs without knowing the ultimate results of the two related Florida actions, as the success or failure of the allegations would significantly impact the entitlement to costs.

Given the ongoing litigation and the direct interest of all parties in the outcome, the court ruled that each party should bear its own costs.

The applicant, NJS Midtown Portfolio Inc., sought a court order directing the respondent, CMLS Financial Ltd., to consent to the sale of a mortgaged property and provide a partial discharge of the mortgage, or alternatively, a full discharge upon payment of the principal and accrued interest.

NJS had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for one of three properties secured by a closed, 10-year mortgage with CMLS, which was insured by CMHC and part of a Mortgage-Backed Securities program.

CMLS refused consent, citing contractual terms, CMHC policy obligations, and the non-prepayable nature of the mortgage.

The court dismissed NJS's application, finding no contractual, statutory, common law, or equitable basis for the requested discharge, and that CMLS's withholding of consent was reasonable given its commercial interests and obligations to CMHC and MBS investors.

K.S.P. Holdings Inc. (KSP) appealed a Master's decision that dismissed its motions to quash a summons to examine its counsel and to strike an expert affidavit.

KSP's underlying motion sought to stay the action due to Tallman Truck Centre Limited's (Tallman) alleged late disclosure of a litigation agreement with co-defendant Secure Capital Advisors Inc. The court found that the Master erred by allowing the examination of opposing counsel and admitting expert evidence on issues irrelevant to the abuse of process analysis, which, according to Handley Estate, focuses on immediate disclosure and does not require proof of prejudice.

The appeal was granted, quashing the summons and striking the affidavit.

Galleria Centre Inc. ("Galleria") applied for an order under s. 207 of the Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") to wind up a co-tenancy agreement or compel Terracap Galleria Centre Inc. ("Terracap") to purchase its interest in a condominium development project.

Terracap cross-applied for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the OBCA, alleging Galleria's refusal to participate was oppressive, and sought to purchase the property on just terms, with proceeds distributed according to the co-tenancy agreement.

The court dismissed Galleria's application, finding its "expectations" were not reasonable and that the co-tenancy agreement provided a mechanism for ending the relationship, rendering s. 207 unnecessary.

Terracap's claim for an oppression remedy was also dismissed, as Galleria's conduct, while potentially a breach of contract, was not oppressive given that contractual remedies were available.

However, Terracap's cross-application was allowed in part, with the court ordering the parties' disengagement to occur in accordance with Article 18 of the Co-Tenancy Agreement, which included the liquidation of assets and the application of Terracap's preferential distribution right.

The appellants appealed a judgment in a motor vehicle accident case where the trial judge admitted liability just before trial and the matter proceeded as a damages assessment before a jury.

The appellants contended that the trial judge failed to address transgressions by respondent's counsel, unfairly summarized evidence in jury instructions, and displayed reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's conduct was fair and balanced, that many complaints were not objected to at trial, and that the allegations of bias did not meet the high threshold required to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by defendant Atif Kamran to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel for plaintiffs Dan Andersson and LEO Canada Inc., and to compel document production.

The court awarded costs to Mr. Kamran, payable by Mr. Andersson alone, fixed at $17,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by Mr. Andersson and noting that the defendants' settlement offer was technically deficient and lacked clarity, thus not engaging the presumptive consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court also considered the broader context of the litigation and the inflammatory nature of some allegations made by Mr. Kamran.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision that had overturned a Discipline Committee penalty decision.

The Discipline Committee found that a physician sexually abused four female patients by unnecessarily touching their breasts and nipples during stethoscope examinations, and engaged in inappropriate conduct with a fifth patient.

The Committee imposed a six-month suspension with practice restrictions, supervision requirements, and mandatory training.

The Divisional Court found the penalty manifestly unfit and remitted it for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court failed to properly apply the deferential reasonableness standard of review, instead substituting its own view of the appropriate penalty.

The Court of Appeal restored the Discipline Committee's penalty, finding no inconsistent findings of fact and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.