Khalid Janmohamed

The plaintiffs sought indemnity under an executive liability insurance policy for losses arising from litigation alleging wrongful acts connected to a corporate subsidiary.

The insurer argued that a specific entity exclusion and coordination-of-limits endorsement limited or eliminated coverage and that payments under a separate run‑off policy should be set off against the policy limits.

The court examined the surrounding negotiations and the wording of the policies, including the meaning of the term “claim,” and found the exclusion did not remove coverage for directors acting in their capacity as directors of the parent corporation.

The court also held that the coordination-of-limits endorsement was not triggered because the two policies covered different wrongful acts committed in different capacities.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs for the full policy limits.

Following an application and counter‑application relating to an agreement of purchase and sale, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $45,000.

The court found the successful party had prevailed entirely, including obtaining an order that the deposit be paid and establishing liability for breach of contract.

However, the issues were primarily contractual interpretation and the facts were largely non‑controversial.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the fairness principle from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council, the court declined substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis against two opposing parties jointly and severally.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to vary prior court orders to extend the deadline for setting the action down for trial after failing to meet a previously ordered deadline.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion seeking dismissal of the action under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered the Reid factors governing relief from administrative dismissal, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The court found the delay largely explained by earlier motion proceedings and appeals, accepted counsel’s explanation that the missed deadline resulted from inadvertence, and found no demonstrated prejudice.

The plaintiffs were granted an extension of the set-down deadline and the defendant’s dismissal motion was denied.

The moving parties sought a without-notice Mareva injunction freezing assets in Ontario allegedly owned or controlled by a foreign state and its intelligence ministry.

The motion arose from efforts to enforce a final United States judgment awarding damages for a fatal terrorist bombing.

The court considered the requirements for a Mareva injunction, including full and frank disclosure, a strong prima facie case for recognition of the foreign judgment, evidence of assets in the jurisdiction, and a real risk of dissipation.

Evidence included expert opinion and materials suggesting certain Ontario properties were owned or controlled by entities acting as alter egos of the foreign state.

The court granted an interim interlocutory injunction restraining disposition of the identified properties pending further proceedings.

The plaintiffs, Tim Hortons franchisees, brought a proposed class action against the franchisor alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and breaches of the Competition Act.

The claims centered on the franchisor's requirement that franchisees purchase par-baked donuts and Lunch Menu ingredients at allegedly commercially unreasonable prices.

The franchisor moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims, finding that the franchisor had the contractual right to require the purchases and set the prices, and that there was no breach of the duty of good faith or the Competition Act.

The certification motion was therefore moot, though the court indicated it would have certified certain common issues had the claims survived.