Kevin Raynald Joseph Caron

Following a decision on two related oppression applications where the court found only one act of oppression by the respondent and declined to order a receiver, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

The court determined the respondents were more successful overall.

The court ordered costs of $50,000 payable to the individual respondent and $50,000 to the corporate respondents.

The applicant, a minority shareholder and former director, brought applications alleging oppression and constructive dismissal against the majority shareholder and the respondent corporations.

The court found the constructive dismissal claim was statute-barred and lacked merit, as the change in compensation method did not constitute a substantial breach of an essential term.

While most oppression claims regarding shareholder loans and business decisions were dismissed under the business judgment rule, the court found the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicant's rights by failing to provide timely access to financial information.

The court declined to appoint a receiver-manager, instead ordering the sale of the corporation's primary real estate asset and an accounting of the proceeds.

Costs endorsement following a successful motion by the plaintiff law firm regarding documentary production obligations.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $12,694, while the defendant argued $5,000 was reasonable given the novelty of the privilege issues.

The court found the defendant's pre-litigation conduct reprehensible, including depositing client funds into a personal account, soliciting cash payments, and making disparaging remarks about clients.

The defendant's blanket refusal to produce documents under the guise of solicitor-client privilege, despite the plaintiff's practical attempts to resolve the matter, further warranted elevated costs.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis in the full amount of $12,694.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion to compel its former partner, the defendant, to produce documents related to his alleged misappropriation of client funds.

The defendant resisted production, arguing the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege and that production would require a blanket waiver from hundreds of clients.

The court granted the motion, finding that the parties and their litigation counsel were within the 'circle of privilege' because they previously shared a solicitor-client relationship with the clients.

The court held that production between the parties did not constitute a waiver of privilege and that the requested documents, including the defendant's personal bank records, were highly relevant to the allegations.

The Court-Appointed Receiver of Ashcroft Homes – Capital Hall Inc. sought approval of a settlement agreement with Northbridge Financial Corporation concerning an action for approximately $60 million in damages related to a fire that interrupted construction of a 353-unit residential condominium building in Ottawa.

The Receiver also sought a sealing order to protect the confidential terms of the settlement.

The court approved the settlement as reasonable and granted the sealing order, finding that the public interest in maximizing recovery for stakeholders and promoting settlement outweighed the principle of court openness under the three-part test established in Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The moving parties, lawyers who drafted a will subject to a lawsuit, sought an extension of time to serve and file a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The court applied the four-part test for an extension of time, finding that the moving parties formed the intention to appeal within the time limit, had a reasonable explanation for the modest 13-day delay, and that there was no prejudice to the responding party.

The court concluded that the justice of the case favoured granting the extension and reserved costs to the panel hearing the leave motion.

The applicant brought a motion seeking consolidation of two oppression remedy applications (2019 and 2023), an order compelling respondents to comply with court orders for audited financial statements, reimbursement of his deposit, a timetable for remaining steps, and written submissions on oppression and receiver appointment.

The court ordered the applications be heard together rather than consolidated, to preserve the respondents' limitation period defences.

The court compelled the respondents to provide answers to the applicant's queries regarding anomalies in the draft financial statements within 30 days and ordered completion of audited financial statements within specified timeframes.

The applicant was ordered to confirm his shareholder loan account within 30 days to allow completion of the audit.

The decision concerns an application by Sheetza McGarry to appoint an interim Estate Trustee and obtain directions regarding the validity of a purported 2016 will and irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designations in the estate of Brian William McGarry.

The court reviews the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and insurance changes, the renunciation of the named executors, and the positions of interested parties and non-parties.

The court refuses to dismiss the application, finds the applicant has met the evidentiary threshold to challenge the will, and appoints neutral third parties as Estate Trustees During Litigation (ETDLs).

Directions are given for the administration of the estate and the production of legal files.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of anti-SLAPP motions by the three defendants.

The court addresses the scale and quantum of costs, the issue of duplication between legal teams, and the entitlement of a self-represented litigant to costs.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the defendants, finding the requests fair and reasonable, and declines to award compensation to the self-represented defendant for his own time.

The court considered the appropriate costs order following an application in which the applicant, Kristine McGinn, obtained injunctive relief against the respondents, including Stephen Bleeker and Assurance Home Care.

The court determined that costs should be payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the applicant’s request for substantial indemnity costs and her request that costs be awarded against Mr. Bleeker personally.

The court fixed costs at $47,769.39, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid within 30 days.

The applicant, Kristine McGinn, sought an interim injunction to restore her status as an employee, officer, and director of Assurance Home Care Inc., and to refer her claims against the respondents to arbitration.

The respondent, Stephen Bleeker, had unilaterally terminated McGinn's employment and sought to remove her from the board, revoking her access to company resources.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in aid of arbitration and determined the injunction sought was prohibitive.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding Bleeker's authority to terminate McGinn unilaterally, and that McGinn would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as it would diminish the prospect of a shotgun/buy-sell order remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo prior to the alleged breach.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, a former Complaints and Appeals Officer for a national sports organization, sued the defendants over emails they sent criticizing his handling of complaints and his suitability for the role.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest regarding athlete safety.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as justification and qualified privilege.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of serious harm caused by the expressions that would outweigh the public interest in protecting them.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

This appeal concerned the assessment of damages in a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The trial judge awarded the respondent (purchaser) damages for the increase in property value and 90% of all development expenses incurred since 2010.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, affirming the award for increased property value and wasted expenses, but erred by including expenses incurred under a prior joint venture agreement that had been released.

The Court held that only expenses incurred after the 2013 Agreement of Purchase and Sale were recoverable.

The calculation of rental costs as development expenses was upheld, but the amount was to be limited to the period of the 2013 APS.

The 10% discount applied by the trial judge was upheld.

The applicant, a former director and minority shareholder, brought a motion seeking an order for the respondent corporation BCE Realty Ltd. to produce an audited financial statement for 2022, alleging financial impropriety and oppression.

The court found the applicant had standing as a former director under the Ontario Business Corporations Act's oppression remedy provisions, despite not being a direct shareholder.

The court granted the order for the audited financial statement but required the applicant to pay the cost in advance, with the right to seek reimbursement at the end of the litigation.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of an urgent injunction application.

The court considered three hearings: the initial injunction application, a hearing regarding the respondent's breach of undertaking, and a hearing requested by the respondent to vary an interim order.

The injunction was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The court awarded costs to the respondent for the initial injunction hearing and for responding to the applicant's post-decision attempt to provide the undertaking, but denied costs for the hearings related to the undertaking breach and the failed attempt to vary the interim order, finding them unnecessary.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the respondent's claimed legal hours and hourly rates.

The applicant, Cash Cloud Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, BitAccess Inc., from terminating a Master Purchase Agreement, deactivating cloud-based software used for cryptocurrency kiosks, and deleting customer data.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant interim relief despite a mandatory arbitration clause.

The court granted a 60-day order preserving the customer data to allow the applicant to download it.

However, the court dismissed the injunction to restrain the software deactivation because the applicant failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two appeals concerning a priority dispute over accelerated interest in closed mortgages and a costs order in a receivership.

The primary issue was whether the first mortgagee, First National Financial GP Corporation (FN), was entitled to future, unearned, accelerated interest upon the early discharge of its closed mortgages due to the mortgagors' default and court-ordered sale.

The court found that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a full contractual analysis of the mortgage provisions and by relying on a standalone common law entitlement to accelerated interest.

The Court of Appeal held that the mortgage terms explicitly provided for FN's entitlements upon default, which did not include accelerated interest.

The appeal regarding accelerated interest was allowed.

The appeal concerning the receiver's costs was dismissed, as the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised.

The Appellants sought an order to vacate Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) and a writ of seizure and sale registered against their properties, pending the determination of their appeals from a judgment and a CPL order.

They proposed paying the judgment amount into court as security to facilitate the sale of the properties to a third party.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that prior agreements required the full sale proceeds to be paid into court and that the Appellants had failed to disclose the sale agreement earlier.

The court found that the prior agreements contemplated a sale before the final determination of damages and that the Appellants' liability was now fixed by the judgment.

The motion was granted, allowing the CPLs and writ to be vacated upon the Appellants paying $1,750,000 into court as reasonable security, balancing the parties' interests.

The plaintiff sued for damages arising from the defendants' refusal to close a real estate transaction for commercial property intended for condominium development.

Liability for breach of contract was previously determined by summary judgment.

At trial to quantify damages, the plaintiff sought disgorgement of profits or, alternatively, expectation damages including reimbursement of development expenses.

The court declined to award gain-based restitution but awarded expectation damages to make the plaintiff whole, comprising the $323,000 difference between the purchase price and the land's value on the closing date, plus 90% of the plaintiff's out-of-pocket development expenses ($1,062,901).

The defendants' counterclaim was allowed in part for admitted debts and rent up to the date of breach.