Keith MacLaren

The applicant appealed three arbitral awards dismissing its claims against the respondent municipality for remediation costs, additional construction costs, and interest related to a waterfront development project.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator made reversible errors of law and breached procedural fairness in all three awards by relying on legal theories and defences—such as an implied 'time is of the essence' term, implied fiduciary-like duties for a construction manager, and equitable estoppel—that were never pleaded or argued by the parties.

The court held that these errors were not trivial and tainted the outcomes, directing the parties to schedule a case management conference to determine the appropriate remedy.

The applicant franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction to compel respondent franchisees to pay withheld royalty and advertising fees.

The franchisees had commenced a 'royalty strike' to gain leverage in contract negotiations following the franchisor's acquisition of the franchise system out of bankruptcy.

The court found a serious issue to be tried but dismissed the injunction motion because the franchisor failed to prove irreparable harm and failed to provide an adequate undertaking as to damages.

The court granted the franchisees' cross-motion to appoint an arbitrator and stay the action pursuant to the arbitration clause in the franchise agreements.

The court determined costs following a motion arising from an examination in aid of execution related to a judgment exceeding $500,000.

The moving parties had obtained orders requiring the responding party to answer undertakings, respond to questions taken under advisement, produce third‑party records, and pay third‑party production costs.

In assessing costs under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the importance of recovery, the conduct of the parties, and the time spent by counsel and support staff.

Although the moving parties sought $7,418 on a partial indemnity basis, the court held that amount was high for a simple motion involving a discrete issue.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax payable by the responding party.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was required to show cause why his oppression remedy action under the Ontario Business Corporations Act should not be dismissed for delay.

The court applied the established two-part test requiring an acceptable explanation for delay and absence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff had taken multiple steps to advance the litigation, including motions, mediation, documentary disclosure, and the addition of a new defendant.

The defendants provided no evidence of prejudice.

The court held the plaintiff met the onus to show cause and permitted the action to proceed with a detailed litigation timetable.

Judgment creditors brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and production of financial records following an examination in aid of execution under Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding party argued he lacked funds to pay the costs of obtaining historical banking records from financial institutions.

The court held that a debtor’s alleged lack of financial means does not excuse compliance with production obligations and that the party with possession or control of relevant documents generally bears the cost of production.

The court ordered the responding party to answer outstanding undertakings, produce specified financial records, and facilitate production of third‑party files, including accountant and lawyer files subject to removal of solicitor‑client privileged communications.

The proposal trustee brought a motion seeking approval of its fees and disbursements following the failure of a consumer proposal under Division I of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The debtor’s proposal had been refused by creditors, resulting in a deemed assignment in bankruptcy.

The court considered whether the trustee’s fees could be paid from the bankrupt estate as a preferred claim under s. 136(1)(b) of the Act.

Finding that the services were properly performed and that the proposal was reasonable in the circumstances, the court approved the trustee’s fees and disbursements.

The motion was granted and the fees were ordered to be treated as a preferred claim in the estate.