Katelyn Ellins

This is an appeal from a trial judgment concerning a breach of an employment contract.

The appellants, Verge Insurance Brokers Ltd. and Mark Sherk, challenged the trial judge's findings on liability and damages.

The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of a contractual provision allowing the respondent, Ryan Lindsay, to purchase his book of business upon resignation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusion that Verge breached the contract by failing to provide accurate account information and sufficient time for Lindsay to close the transaction.

The court affirmed the trial judge's damages award, applying a standard of substantial deference to contractual interpretation and factual findings on loss of profits.

This is a costs decision following a motion to appoint a litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. The plaintiffs, Kathy Ann Di Silvestro and Kandis Developments Limited, successfully moved to appoint an independent litigation guardian (Bryan Gelman) for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., despite opposition from the defendants Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, who proposed themselves or an accountant with prior involvement.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $80,000 in costs, with 50% to be paid by Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. and the other 50% jointly and severally by Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, due to their pursuit of inappropriate LG candidates despite clear conflicts of interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to appoint an independent litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., who was deemed incapable of managing his property and instructing counsel.

The defendants, including Tony Sr.'s daughter Laura, opposed, arguing Laura should remain as LG based on a Power of Attorney and that the plaintiffs needed to show misconduct.

The court found that Laura and Matthew had conflicts of interest due to allegations of undue influence over their parents' business and estate plans.

The court dismissed Laura's claim that her prior self-appointment as LG shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to prove misconduct.

Applying the 'best interests test' and 'indifference' principle from Gronnerud, the court ruled that neither Laura, Matthew, nor a family-connected accountant (Mr. Mastroluisi) were suitable due to potential conflicts.

The court appointed Bryan Gelman, an independent insolvency trustee, as the litigation guardian for Tony Sr., subject to approval of terms.

Following the approval of a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act, the successful applicant sought costs against the objecting creditors.

The objectors argued the applicant was disentitled to costs for failing to request them initially and that the quantum sought was excessive.

The court rejected the disentitlement argument, finding the objectors had notice that costs would be addressed in writing.

The court awarded $100,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount for proportionality, and ordered the costs payable jointly and severally by the objectors as they had pursued a common strategy.

The applicant mining company sought a final order approving a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act to sever ties with the Kyrgyz Republic following the state's seizure of its flagship mine.

Two unsecured judgment creditors of the Republic objected, seeking to enforce their arbitral awards against the Republic's shares in the applicant or garnish payments under the Arrangement.

The court approved the Arrangement, finding it met the statutory requirements, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable.

The court held the creditors lacked standing to oppose the Arrangement and that garnishment was inappropriate as it would result in double jeopardy.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim, arguing the claims lacked particularity, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the oppression claims should have been brought as a derivative action.

The dispute involved a family-owned real estate business.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pleadings provided sufficient particulars and that it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's oppression claims would fail, particularly given the context of a closely-held family corporation where personal and derivative claims may overlap.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend certain paragraphs to provide additional facts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its decision to allow an appeal, set aside a dismissal order, and restore the action.

The appellants sought costs for both the appeal and the original motion.

The respondents argued against any costs award, particularly for the original motion, citing s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court found no basis to deny costs for the appeal, as the appellants were entirely successful, but reduced the quantum sought.

For the original motion, the Court clarified its previous finding regarding public interest, noting the motion judge erred, and applied the principle from Veneruzzo v. Storey that costs should be awarded to a successful respondent on a s. 137.1 motion if the lawsuit was not a SLAPP and the expression was unrelated to public interest.

The Court awarded the appellants their costs for both the appeal and the original motion.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their defamation action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action arose from allegedly defamatory statements made by the respondents in an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) pleading.

The motion judge found the expression related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by characterizing the expression too broadly and by concluding that the specific impugned statements, which concerned a private dispute between competitors, related to a matter of public interest.

The Court clarified that purely private disputes, even if involving allegations of tortious conduct, do not automatically qualify as matters of public interest for anti-SLAPP purposes.

The applicant, Richard Sherk, brought a motion for an interim payment out of court of funds held to the credit of the action.

The respondent, Mark Sherk, opposed the motion, arguing that the funds served as a 'cushion' for potential damages he might be awarded and that further reduction would be prejudicial.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the respondent's arguments without merit, consistent with prior decisions and the Divisional Court's ruling that the respondent had no right to the funds as security ahead of judgment.

AIMCO and CHC MPAR LP entered into a co-ownership agreement to develop a student housing project.

After the project faced zoning rejections, AIMCO and CHC independently acquired a neighbouring property without including MPAR, a 50% shareholder in the general partner.

AIMCO subsequently triggered a shotgun clause to buy out the limited partnership's interest.

MPAR opposed the buyout and applied for relief, alleging oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed MPAR's application, finding no oppressive conduct, fiduciary duties, or contractual breaches, as the agreements explicitly excluded obligations regarding outside business opportunities.

AIMCO's application for specific performance of the shotgun clause was granted.