Kevin D. Toyne

The insured was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and claimed statutory accident benefits.

After disputes arose, the insured elected to have her claims determined by a FSCO arbitrator.

The parties attended a settlement meeting where the insured signed a release for $165,000, but she subsequently sought to rescind the settlement, claiming she did not understand its finality.

The insurer applied to the Superior Court of Justice for a declaration that a binding settlement was reached.

The court dismissed the application, holding that under the Insurance Act, once an insured elects arbitration, the FSCO arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions of fact and law, including whether a binding settlement was reached and whether it was validly rescinded.

The Attorney General brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, regarding $205,100 in Canadian currency seized by police during a domestic assault arrest.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the police officers' lay opinion evidence was inadmissible and the Crown failed to establish reasonable grounds.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was proceeds of unlawful activity, noting the money was bundled, tested positive for controlled substances via a canine sniff, and the respondents' explanation for the cash was not credible.

The preservation order was granted.

The respondents, who had previously been found in contempt of court and sentenced, sought an adjournment of their upcoming compliance and sentencing hearing.

They requested the adjournment to allow time to seek a stay pending appeal in the Court of Appeal and to accommodate a religious holiday.

The applicant opposed the adjournment.

The court dismissed the motion for an adjournment, noting the urgency of determining compliance with the court's orders and the respondents' delay in seeking a stay.

Following a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to individually named defendants whose claims had been struck as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had asserted a $10 million claim against individual employees and directors of corporate defendants without adequately pleading separate acts or interests beyond their corporate roles.

The individual defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the claims constituted tactical harassment.

The court found the claims against the individuals lacked proper particulars but concluded the circumstances did not justify elevated costs.

Partial indemnity costs were instead fixed at reduced amounts reflecting duplication of work with corporate defendants’ counsel.

The defendants moved under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic interests, trespass, and breach of confidence arising from alleged GPS tracking of the plaintiff’s service vehicles to obtain customer information.

The court held that the pleadings for civil conspiracy lacked the required material facts and particulars but granted leave to amend.

The claim for intentional interference with economic interests was struck without leave to amend because the pleadings failed to allege unlawful means directed at a third party as required by the Supreme Court’s formulation of the tort.

Allegations against individual corporate officers were struck as an abuse of process for failing to plead independent tortious conduct.

Claims for trespass to chattels and breach of confidence were allowed to proceed, while the trespass to land claim was struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant law firm for professional negligence arising from advice given during a share purchase transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged the law firm failed to properly advise them on the risks associated with a pending wrongful dismissal lawsuit against the target company, resulting in a liability that exceeded the negotiated indemnity.

The defendant law firm moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of the standard of care without expert evidence, and failed to prove that the alleged negligent advice caused their damages.

The plaintiffs and defendants, two brothers and their respective holding companies, engaged in a complex corporate divorce involving a transportation business, ProNorth.

The court determined that the brothers were equal 50/50 shareholders in the holding company, rejecting the defendant's claim of a 62/38 split.

The court found the defendant brother engaged in oppressive conduct by wrongfully excluding the plaintiff from a shareholders' meeting and removing him as a director.

As a remedy, the court ordered the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's shares at a fair value of $4,455,000, based on an en bloc valuation of $8.91 million.

The court also resolved disputes over several jointly owned properties, ordering the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's interests in properties used by the business, and directing the partition and sale of others.

The court awarded the plaintiff $180,000 in damages for exclusion from management, offset by $105,000 awarded to the company for the plaintiff's wrongful detention of a corporate aircraft.

Finally, the court found the company's accountant breached his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by swearing an affidavit contrary to the corporate records, awarding nominal damages of $100.