Lara Di Genova

The court dismissed MC Mines Inc.'s motion to set aside service and stay a third-party claim brought by Best International Cargo Inc. in Ontario.

The dispute arose from damage to mining equipment during transport from Quebec to Montreal, with MC Mines arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Quebec was the more appropriate forum.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the main contract was formed there, and held that the action should proceed in Ontario to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendant franchisor brought a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim, seeking declaratory relief and enforcement of a personal guarantee for unpaid costs from a previous order.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party acknowledged it was no longer seeking the damages originally pleaded in its counterclaim, and the declaratory and guarantee relief sought on the motion had never been pleaded in the counterclaim.

The court held that summary judgment could not be granted for relief that was not properly before the court in the underlying action.

This decision addresses two motions brought by the Defendants to compel answers to refusals arising from examinations for discovery and cross-examinations on affidavits filed for a security for costs motion.

The court provided guidance on the scope of cross-examination on affidavits, particularly concerning the financial disclosure obligations of shareholders of corporate plaintiffs claiming impecuniosity.

The Master made specific rulings on numerous disputed refusals, balancing relevance and proportionality, and ordered the Shareholders to provide additional information and documents, while adjourning the discovery refusals motion.

Giuseppe Paolo Magnotta died intestate, survived by his wife, Melissa Magnotta (Applicant), and his mother, Rossana Magnotta (Respondent).

Melissa applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a Will.

Rossana objected, initially citing Melissa's alleged threat to exhume the deceased's remains and misrepresentation of estate liabilities, and sought a neutral third-party trustee.

The court found Rossana's objections unreasonable, as Melissa was the sole beneficiary and her "threat" to exhume was not acted upon.

Rossana's claim of a financial interest as a creditor for funeral expenses was also deemed insufficient to grant standing under Rule 75.03, as creditors have other remedies.

The court granted Melissa's application, dispensed with the administration bond, and awarded Melissa partial indemnity costs against Rossana.

The Plaintiffs moved to appoint Janina Gal as litigation guardian for Andrzej Gal, who was mentally incapable.

The Defendants opposed, arguing Janina had an adverse interest and was not indifferent to the outcome.

The court found Janina had a conflict of interest, as the litigation's success would result in properties forming part of Andrew's estate, which would then be transferred solely to Janina under Andrew's will, conflicting with Andrew's stated intention to divide properties equally among his daughters.

Furthermore, Janina was not indifferent to the outcome, as she stood to gain financially and had an acrimonious relationship with another daughter involved in the dispute.

The motion to appoint Janina as litigation guardian was dismissed, and the Plaintiffs were ordered to appoint a new, unconflicted litigation guardian or move to appoint the Public Trustee and Guardian.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $187,500 in commission from the defendant for an alleged breach of a Buyer Representation Agreement.

The defendant opposed the motion and maintained a counterclaim for damages, alleging the agreement was incomplete when signed and backdated.

The court found significant contradictory evidence regarding the execution and terms of the agreement, concluding there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, as the use of enhanced fact-finding powers would not be in the interests of justice.

The plaintiff, Azmoon Trading Inc., sought to alter a previous costs award in favour of the defendants, Caffe Demetre Franchising Corp. et al., following the dismissal of an injunction motion.

Azmoon Trading argued that costs should be borne by each party due to similar incurred costs and ongoing litigation, and challenged specific disbursements related to the defendants' counsel retaining lawyers from London, Ontario.

The court confirmed the original costs award of $41,670.61 to Caffe Demetre, finding that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs, and that retaining counsel from a different municipality, even if it incurs additional travel disbursements, is generally permissible and reasonable if the overall costs are fair.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction to prevent the termination of its franchise, the defendants sought their costs.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and the defendants' cost outline.

Finding the time spent and rates charged to be reasonable, the court awarded the defendants their partial indemnity costs fixed at $41,670.61.

The plaintiff franchisee sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant franchisor from acting on a notice terminating the franchise agreement.

The termination followed a dispute over the scope and cost of renovations required for a final five-year renewal.

Applying the RJR McDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the franchisee failed to establish irreparable harm, as damages would be an adequate remedy and the franchise term was nearing its absolute end.

The balance of convenience also favoured the franchisor, partly because the franchisee failed to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

On appeal from a motion judge's decision, the franchisor appealed the finding that the franchise agreement had been validly rescinded under section 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, and the dismissal of its cross-motion for damages.

The franchisee cross-appealed certain ancillary issues.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of the franchisor on all issues.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs for both the underlying motions for summary judgment and the appeal.

The appellants (franchisor and related entities) appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondents (franchisee and principals) validly rescinded a franchise agreement under section 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The motion judge found the franchise disclosure document (FDD) was so inadequate as to amount to no disclosure because it failed to include the terms of the head lease and did not provide cost estimates for converting an existing restaurant to an ASWR outlet.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the FDD may have contained deficiencies, these were not so serious as to amount to a complete lack of disclosure.

The court distinguished the case from prior jurisprudence by noting the franchise agreement contained collaborative site selection and opt-out provisions that protected the franchisee's ability to make an informed decision.

The court awarded damages to the franchisor for unpaid construction invoices and the head lease deposit, less any benefits derived from operating the franchise.

The plaintiffs, a franchisee and its principals, moved for partial summary judgment seeking rescission of a franchise agreement due to alleged failures of disclosure under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the franchisor's disclosure document was egregiously deficient, specifically lacking a materially complete form of lease (including the head lease) and proper cost estimates for a conversion-type franchise.

The court rejected arguments that disclosure was impossible due to an undetermined location or that franchisee sophistication waived disclosure obligations.

The deficiencies amounted to a failure to provide a disclosure document, entitling the franchisee to rescission under s. 6(2) of the AWA.

The court also determined which corporate defendants were "franchisor's associates" and dismissed claims for misrepresentation and breach of good faith due to lack of focused argument.

All damages issues were referred to a Master.

The George Defendants brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself due to his past association and friendship with the Plaintiffs' senior counsel.

The judge, while finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on his past involvement with a non-profit organization, ultimately decided to recuse himself.

This decision was made out of an abundance of caution, given his personal friendship with counsel and the possibility that counsel's credibility might become an issue in the motions, despite the administrative nature of counsel's affidavit.

The matter was sent back to civil practice court for a new judge.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision denying their request to vary a Mareva order to permit them access to the proceeds from the sale of their home to pay legal fees.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of public importance transcending the immediate interests of the parties, nor were there conflicting decisions on the issue.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, former franchisees of a Baton Rouge restaurant, brought an application seeking declarations that a non-competition clause in their franchise agreement was void and unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade or for ambiguity.

They also sought a declaration that their proposed new restaurant menu did not violate the clause, and claimed damages for breach of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the 5-year, 10-kilometre restrictive covenant to be reasonable and unambiguous given its narrow scope, which only prohibited selling products using the franchisor's recipes.

The court declined to rule on the proposed menu without evidence of the actual recipes and found no evidence of bad faith by the franchisor.