Joseph Groia

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued the settlement lacked certainty and that the court should exercise its discretion not to enforce it, particularly because one plaintiff was a party under disability.

The court found that an objective reading of the communications between counsel established a binding agreement to settle.

The court also found the settlement was in the best interests of the party under disability and declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the agreement, noting the plaintiffs' remedy for any alleged bad advice lay against their former counsel.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The Professional Centre brought a motion for summary judgment against The Ottawa Hospital concerning the interpretation of parking provisions in a 49-year lease and related Memorandum of Agreement.

The Professional Centre alleged breaches regarding the availability of 250 parking spaces, remittance of revenue from 40 parking spaces, and unauthorized use of encroaching parking spaces and an access road.

The Hospital denied any breach, asserting it exercised contractual discretion in good faith.

The court dismissed all of the Professional Centre's claims, finding no breach of the lease, that the Hospital had an implied easement over the access road, and that the Professional Centre failed to prove damages, including a high vacancy rate, were caused by the alleged parking issues.

The appellant, a former senior compliance manager at Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank), appealed the dismissal of her application for lack of standing.

She sought to uncover and remedy alleged regulatory infractions and trust breaches by TD Bank in its mutual fund administration, claiming unjust enrichment and wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge dismissed her application, finding she lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the court's inherent jurisdiction to supervise trusts does not negate standing requirements, that the private interest standing test (requiring a personal and direct interest) was correctly applied, and that the appellant failed to plead facts establishing such standing, including as a constructive trustee.

The court also rejected the argument that public interest standing principles should inform private interest standing or that her whistleblower status conferred standing for private litigation.

Marian Carroll, a former TD employee, brought an application seeking an order to compel The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries (TD Waterhouse Private Investment Counsel Inc. and TD Asset Management Inc., as Trustees of the TD Mutual Funds Trust and TD Private Funds Trust) to pass their accounts, alleging misconduct and breaches of trust.

The Respondents moved to strike the application for lack of standing.

The court found that Carroll lacked private interest standing as she was not a beneficiary or unitholder and had no direct financial interest in the trusts.

The court also rejected public interest standing, concluding that the application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the matter before the court, given other available avenues for beneficiaries and regulatory bodies.

The Respondents' motion to strike was granted, and Carroll's application was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., sought summary judgment for specific performance of options to purchase real property.

The defendant, KKP Investments Inc., brought a cross-motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process and for payment of rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings with a related "Main Action" and because it was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was also dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff's new action was a matter of form over substance given prior settlement attempts.

The defendant's request for interim rent was withdrawn.

Both actions were ordered to be tried together.

The plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement with certain defendants, class counsel fees and disbursements, and honorariums for the representative plaintiffs.

The settlement amount was $37 million.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, including dissolved corporate entities and limitations issues.

The court also approved the 30% contingency fee for class counsel and $50,000 honorariums for each representative plaintiff, recognizing their exceptional involvement and exposure to costs.

Following an earlier decision requiring certain respondents to purchase the applicant’s shares in a corporation for $4.25 million, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was lower than the judgment amount and sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the extensive litigation history, overlapping issues involving two related corporate interests, and the respondents’ conduct that complicated document production and valuation.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors and recognizing the respondents’ obstructive conduct, the court fixed substantial indemnity costs for fees and taxes and allowed claimed disbursements and expert valuation expenses in full.

Following dismissal of an employee’s action alleging multiple breaches of an employment agreement, the employer sought costs of the action.

The employer relied on earlier offers to settle and argued it should receive substantial indemnity costs after the first refused offer.

The court held that elevated costs outside Rule 49.10 require reprehensible or egregious conduct by the opposing party.

Finding no such conduct and noting the action was hard fought but not frivolous, the court declined substantial indemnity costs and instead awarded a reduced amount under Rule 57.01.

Following dismissal of a proposed securities class action leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendants sought nearly $900,000 based on partial recovery of actual legal fees, while the plaintiff argued for a substantially reduced award grounded in access-to-justice concerns.

The court held that the costs protocol developed for certification motions does not apply to leave motions, which function as a robust merits-based screening mechanism and often involve extensive evidentiary records.

Applying the hourly rate grid and Rule 57.01 factors, the court reduced certain disbursements but rejected the plaintiff’s lower estimate.

The court fixed all-inclusive costs at $500,000 payable to the defendants.

The applicant brought an oppression application against her father and brother, alleging they conducted the family business in an oppressive manner.

The applicant was secretly removed as a director of the corporation, denied financial information, and pressured to sell her shares at a dictated price.

The court found the respondents' conduct was abusive, coercive, and unfairly disregarded the applicant's reasonable expectations as a shareholder and director.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the applicant's shares at a fair value of $4.25 million, declining to apply a minority discount.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation class action under the Securities Act and to certify the action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The claim alleged that the defendant mining company's public disclosures regarding mineral production and grade levels were misrepresentations, which were later corrected by anonymous internet postings by short-sellers, causing a significant drop in share price.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff's expert evidence failed to controvert the defendant's expert explanation of the discrepancies in the production numbers.

Consequently, the court also dismissed the motion for certification, as the common law claims rested on the same evidentiary foundation and were destined to fail.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring a class action against a mining company for secondary market misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleged that the company's public disclosures regarding mineral production and grade levels were false, as purportedly revealed by a subsequent technical report and anonymous short-seller internet postings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable possibility of success at trial because the defendants' uncontroverted expert evidence explained that the discrepancies between the reports were due to different reporting parameters, not misrepresentations.

The plaintiff, a successful retail stockbroker, sued his former employer for breach of contract, alleging he was owed a 10% finder's fee on several large corporate finance transactions under an April 11, 2006 agreement.

The court found that the agreement was exclusively a retail document and did not apply to transactions involving the employer's Capital Markets group.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligent overpayment of his assistant, unjust enrichment, bad faith, and entitlement to unvested deferred stock units.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a proposed securities class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the company's ability to maintain its dividend, causing shareholders and debenture-holders to sustain losses when the dividend was cut.

The court dismissed the leave motion, finding no reasonable possibility that the secondary market misrepresentation claims would succeed at trial, as the defendants' statements were based on a genuine belief in their growth strategy at the time.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, holding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims, which require individualized proof of reliance.

The court addressed three issues regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of properties by a court-appointed Sales Officer.

The court approved the Sales Officer's recommendation to reduce the general reserve and distribute funds following the closing of two properties.

The court also directed that future costs of the Sales Officer be allocated to the sole remaining property.

Finally, the court declined to eliminate or reduce a $7.5 million Settlement Liquidity Holdback, maintaining it to ensure liquidity for accounting adjustments and to incentivize the parties to advance the long-standing family litigation.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding the procedure for an oppression-related application involving disputes over family-owned corporations.

The applicant sought to sever and proceed first with issues concerning ownership and valuation of shares in one corporation, arguing that those issues were discrete and could be resolved without delay.

The respondents argued the matters were intertwined and that the entire proceeding should be converted to an action and proceed to trial.

The court held that it was premature to determine whether the issues could ultimately be severed or whether a trial would be required, and that the applicant should be permitted to proceed with the proposed application hearing limited to the corporate issues identified.

The parties were directed to establish a timetable for hearing the application issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that several Guatemalan defendants were properly served with a fresh statement of claim outside Ontario or, alternatively, an order validating service.

The proceeding alleged a $400 million conspiracy and fraud causing damage in Ontario.

The court considered Rules 17.02 and 17.05(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing service outside Ontario in non‑contracting states under the Hague Service Convention.

The court held that where the foreign jurisdiction is not a contracting state, parties may serve originating process using Ontario service rules rather than the foreign state's service regime.

Personal service on corporate defendants was valid, and service on individual defendants was validated under rule 16.08 because the claim came to their attention despite attempts to evade service.

The moving defendants sought an extension of time to deliver their statements of defence in a complex commercial action alleging conspiracy and misappropriation of corporate assets relating to an international family business enterprise.

The plaintiffs opposed the request and argued the defendants should immediately challenge the pleadings or deliver defences.

The court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to extend the time, finding that jurisdiction and service motions involving foreign defendants could significantly affect the structure of the litigation.

Requiring the defendants to attack the pleadings or file defences before those issues were resolved would create inefficiency, risk inconsistent rulings, and provide little practical progress in the litigation.

The extension was granted until the final determination of service and jurisdiction motions involving the foreign defendants.

Following earlier reasons dismissing most applicants’ requests for interim advancement of legal expenses from a corporation, the court addressed the costs of the applications.

The respondent corporation sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $559,000 or alternatively partial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued that costs should remain in the cause of the underlying indemnity issue.

The court held that although the respondent was largely successful, payment of costs should be contingent on the outcome of the trial determining entitlement to indemnity.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs of $25,000 for a related motion and $165,000 for the applications, subject to specific allocations among applicants and exceptions for one successful applicant and another who withdrew participation.

Following a trial judgment awarding over $16 million to the plaintiff in a commercial dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award and prejudgment interest.

The court held that although the plaintiff’s Rule 49 offer was served slightly outside the formal timing requirements, it could still be considered under Rules 57.01 and 49.13.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded from the date of the settlement offer and for work responding to a serious trading‑manipulation allegation later abandoned by the defendant.

However, the court found the plaintiff’s claimed hours excessive and reduced the requested fees.

The court fixed total fees at $1,400,000 inclusive of taxes, allowed disbursements of $191,813, and awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date the cause of action arose.