Kenneth Prehogan

This appeal arose from a residential real estate development joint venture that ended in dispute over profit overpayments and retained proceeds.

The trial judge found oppression, ordered an accounting, and made findings on set-off, piercing the corporate veil, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found errors in the trial judge's premature dismissal of set-off claims, the personal liability findings against individuals (Rekha and Meena Sharma) by improperly piercing the corporate veil of non-parties or for insufficient reasons, and the finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty.

The Court also determined that the immediate payment orders for net sale proceeds, the pre-judgment interest rate, and the costs award were premature given the outstanding accounting.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside parts of the trial judgment and the entire interest and costs judgment, and directing the Associate Judge conducting the accounting to determine interest and costs after the accounting is completed.

The applicant employer sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against a former employee who resigned and joined a competitor.

The employee had signed an employment agreement and later a shareholder agreement containing broader restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were reasonable or enforceable, as they were overly broad and ambiguous.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm, as the applicant's claims of misused confidential information were speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

This decision addresses the issue of costs and pre-judgment interest following a 29-day trial concerning a dispute over the construction of a luxury custom home.

The court's prior reasons (2023 ONSC 2015) found the owners (the Kriesers) breached contracts with the builder/landscaper (the GES defendants), dismissing the Kriesers' claims and awarding outstanding amounts to the GES defendants on their counterclaim.

The GES defendants sought substantial indemnity costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court fixed pre-judgment interest, reducing it for periods of delay attributable to the GES defendants and the COVID-19 pandemic.

For costs, the court awarded the GES defendants partial indemnity costs up to their Rule 49 Offer to Settle date (November 22, 2016) and then blended costs thereafter, reflecting their complete success in the action and counterclaim.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs throughout, finding the Kriesers' allegations did not warrant it, and made minor adjustments for costs related to mid-trial adjournments and new counsel familiarization.

The Kriesers sued Gregory Evan Seligman and his companies (G.E.S. Construction Limited, Greenstone Gardens Inc., etc.) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, punitive damages, trespass, and intimidation related to the construction of a luxury custom home.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid accounts.

The court found that the Kriesers breached the construction and landscaping contracts by failing to make timely and sufficient payments.

All claims brought by the Kriesers were dismissed, and the counterclaims by G.E.S. Construction Limited and Greenstone Gardens Inc. for outstanding amounts were granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to declare three judgment debtors as vexatious litigants and to prohibit them from bringing further motions without leave, or alternatively, to require them to post security for costs.

The motion was prompted by the judgment debtors' attempt to set aside a 2014 trial judgment based on allegedly new evidence.

The court found that two of the judgment debtors had a history of abusive litigation conduct, including re-litigating decided issues and failing to pay costs awards.

The court declared those two debtors vexatious litigants and ordered all three to post security for costs before pursuing any further motions to set aside the judgment.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment concerning the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) and related employment agreements.

The dispute arose after the appellants (purchasers of a business) furloughed one of the respondents (sellers/employees) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the respondents asserted was a constructive dismissal.

The SPA included an "Accelerated Provision" for a capital payment if an employee was terminated without cause, and an "Unprofitable Quarter Provision" allowing termination for cause without penalty.

The motion judge found constructive dismissal without cause, triggering the Accelerated Provision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's interpretation that the appellants had not exercised their option to terminate for cause under the Unprofitable Quarter Provision, and that their actions constituted a termination without cause, thereby triggering the payment.

The court emphasized deference to the motion judge's contractual interpretation and rejected arguments of commercial absurdity.

This decision addresses interest and costs following a trial concerning a defunct joint venture.

The plaintiffs were largely successful at trial, establishing misappropriation of funds by the defendants and lifting the corporate veil.

The court awarded pre-judgment interest at 8% (non-compounded) from January 1, 2012, to November 2, 2021, with an exclusion period for plaintiff's delay.

Post-judgment interest was set at the Courts of Justice Act rates.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, reduced from the claimed amount due to some divided success and costs incurred by defendants from mid-trial document production.

The court found the defendants' conduct, including meritless allegations of dishonesty and introducing new unpleaded theories at trial, justified the substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants, Eugene Bokserman and Elena Krasnov, appealed a summary judgment that found a fraudulent conveyance of their jointly held home and awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the conveyance was fraudulent, the refusal to admit fresh evidence, the determination that the action was not statute-barred, and the substantial indemnity costs award.

The court affirmed the motion judge's ability to assess credibility and weigh evidence in a summary judgment context and found no error in the application of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act or the Limitations Act.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. (JGC) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract and dependent contractor claims against Recipe Unlimited Corporation (Cara).

JGC alleged Cara breached a 2006 consulting agreement, including a stock option provision, and failed to provide reasonable notice upon termination.

The motion judge found JGC waived an auto-renewal clause, terminating the agreement in 2010, and that no other written agreement replaced it.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in finding a unilateral waiver for no consideration and that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the terms governing the parties' relationship after 2008, given the uncertainty in the record and the parties' conduct.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for trial.

The plaintiffs and the deceased Madan Sharma were involved in a joint venture to build and sell residential homes.

Following Sharma's death, disputes arose over the winding up of the joint venture, with both sides alleging overpayment of management fees and misappropriation of funds.

The court found that the defendants misappropriated $1,586,584.83 from the sale of a joint venture property by directing the proceeds to a non-joint venture corporation, and pierced the corporate veil to hold the individual defendants personally liable.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for misappropriation but found that the plaintiff's post-2008 record keeping was sufficiently unreliable to constitute oppression, ordering a formal accounting to determine the final state of accounts.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a fraudulent conveyance action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale against the defendants and the intervenor.

The court noted the defendants' delay tactics, unfounded allegations of fraud, and lack of credibility.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $175,000 against the defendants and $30,000 against the intervenor, finding the amounts reasonable given the complexity introduced by the defendants' failed defenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to declare the transfer of a property from the judgment debtor to his spouse as a fraudulent conveyance.

The transfer occurred shortly after a draft judgment of $1.5 million (U.S.) was released against the debtor.

The defendants argued the plaintiff lacked standing, the action was statute-barred, and counterclaimed for slander of title.

The court found the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors, dismissed the defendants' motion to adduce new evidence, dismissed the counterclaim, and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, including a tracing order to a subsequently purchased property.

Following a trial regarding reciprocal easements and commercial redevelopment, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs achieved divided success, obtaining some but not all of the declaratory relief sought and failing to obtain a permanent injunction.

The court declined to make a distributive costs order, instead reducing the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs by 50% to reflect their divided success and over-staffing, awarding them $638,804.86 against the Market Village defendants.

The Kennedy defendants were awarded $70,000 in partial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff misrepresented the zoning of the property and breached the agreement by refusing to grant further extensions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the clear 'entire agreement' and 'as is' clauses in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and the defendant's own failure to properly investigate the zoning.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, finding she had reasonably mitigated her damages by reselling the property.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $27 million breach of contract claim on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant relied on the plaintiff's conduct and a pre-litigation offer to settle for $70,000.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and held that Rule 49 cost consequences do not apply to pre-litigation offers.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $180,000, applying a reduction to the defendant's claimed hours and rates for proportionality.

The moving party Plaintiffs ("AFEX") sought a continuation of an ex parte Mareva injunction against the Defendants (MBM Trading, Mendel Streicher, and Emmeco Inc.).

AFEX's claim arose from six USD wire transactions totaling over $845,000 that were initiated by MBM but subsequently rejected by MBM's financial institutions due to insufficient funds or frozen accounts.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, inferring that Streicher knew or was wilfully blind to the frozen status of his accounts when initiating the transactions.

The court rejected the Defendants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and the absence of a signed account agreement, finding that the parties' conduct implied an agreement to Ontario jurisdiction and that a mediation clause did not preclude urgent interlocutory relief.

The court also found a serious risk of asset dissipation, noting Streicher's lack of transparency regarding the use of AFEX funds and his rapid repayment of other creditors.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the MBM Defendants were ordered to provide a sworn statement of worldwide assets and submit to examinations.

The plaintiffs and defendants own contiguous commercial retail centres and share reciprocal easements for access and parking.

The defendants proposed a major redevelopment that would expand their building footprint onto lands subject to the plaintiffs' easement, eliminating hundreds of surface parking spaces.

The plaintiffs sought declarations and an injunction to prevent the development.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proposed development would substantially interfere with the plaintiffs' easement rights and overburden the remaining shared parking.

The court granted specific declarations confirming the breach of the easements but declined to issue a permanent injunction, finding it unnecessary given existing structural safeguards.

The defendant, Recipe Unlimited Corporation (Cara), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd.'s (JGC), claims for breach of contract and common law reasonable notice.

The court found that JGC had waived the automatic renewal clause of its consulting agreement with Cara, causing the agreement to terminate.

The court also determined that JGC was not a dependent contractor, primarily due to its admission of no financial dependency on Cara and the significant other business interests of its principal, Jack Ganz.

Consequently, JGC's claims for breach of contract and common law reasonable notice were dismissed.

A minor claim regarding a projector and inventory was also dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The defendant, Recipe Unlimited Corporation, moved to strike the plaintiff's (Angus Inc.) Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), alleging failure to plead material facts for claims of inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and "misrepresentation in the marketplace." The court dismissed the motion regarding inducing breach of contract and intentional interference, finding the pleadings sufficient.

However, the claim for "misrepresentation in the marketplace," interpreted as injurious falsehood, was struck with leave to amend due to insufficient particulars of malice and intent to induce non-dealing.