Laurence A. Pattillo

This motion concerned an application by Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC) to enforce two arbitral awards (a Partial Final Award on liability and damages, and a Final Award on costs) against Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation and Baffinland Iron Mines LP (BIM).

BIM raised several defenses, including a pending application to set aside or appeal the awards, which had previously been dismissed by the court.

The court granted TEBC's application to enforce both awards, confirming the awarded amounts for damages and costs, with a condition regarding the transfer of equipment title and excluding "applicable taxes" as not provided for in the original arbitral awards.

Pre-judgment interest was maintained as per the Tribunal's award.

The applicant, a former Senior Manager, Compliance, sought court advice and direction regarding claims for solicitor-client privilege asserted by the Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries over documents and information in her possession.

The applicant had previously initiated a wrongful dismissal claim and sent whistleblower reports to regulators using internal Bank documents.

The Bank asserted privilege over certain materials and applied redactions.

The court found that the documents and information in the applicant's possession were subject to solicitor-client privilege and should be returned or redacted.

The court also denied the applicant's request for her litigation counsel to review the privileged materials, finding no "absolute necessity," and rejected arguments that the privilege belonged to trust beneficiaries or was negated by a future crimes/fraud exception.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the Bank.

The applicants, Baffinland Iron Mines LP and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIM), sought to set aside an arbitration award of over $70 million and a subsequent costs award in favour of the respondent, Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC), pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and for leave to appeal under s. 45(1) of the Act.

The court dismissed BIM's application, finding no grounds to set aside the award for lack of jurisdiction or procedural unfairness, and further held that the arbitration agreement precluded an appeal from the Tribunal's decision.

The applicant, Don Bernier, brought an oppression application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, asserting he was a beneficial and equitable shareholder of Skilcor Food Products Inc. and La Riberie Inc. at the time of their 2017 sales, and was denied his shareholder entitlement.

The respondents denied his shareholder status.

The court found that while an oral agreement for a 9% interest in a "Consolidated group" (Skilcor food assets, La Riberie, and Northbud) existed prior to 2010, this agreement was mutually rescinded by the parties' subsequent conduct, specifically the sale and winding-up of Northbud in 2013.

This rendered the original agreement inoperative as Bernier no longer had the equity contribution (Northbud shares) upon which his interest was based.

The court concluded Bernier was not a shareholder of Skilcor or La Riberie at the time of the sales and therefore lacked standing to bring an oppression claim.

The application was dismissed.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

This costs endorsement followed previous judgments in consolidated applications concerning a shareholder dispute.

The court had dismissed the Cornacchia Group’s application and allowed, in part, Michael Cotic’s application, making Cotic the overall successful party.

Cotic sought substantial indemnity costs, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs under Rule 49.

The Cornacchia Group argued for apportioned costs or no reimbursement for disbursements.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity, finding that allegations of fraud arose from Cotic's sloppy record-keeping rather than deliberate misconduct, and that Cotic's Rule 49 offer was not more favourable than the judgment obtained.

The court also found the Cornacchia Group's actions did not unnecessarily prolong proceedings.

Cotic was awarded partial indemnity costs, assessed at $380,000, payable forthwith, jointly and severally by the Cornacchia Group, with a right of set-off against the purchase price of their interests in the Corporation.

This action arose from a dispute between two individuals, Bateni and Jamali, concerning the acquisition and ownership of a Chrysler Canada car dealership.

Bateni claimed damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, diversion of corporate opportunities, oppression under the Business Corporations Act, and wrongful dismissal.

The court found that an oral agreement existed between Bateni and Jamali for Bateni to acquire a 20% ownership interest in a new dealership (Caledon Hills) through "sweat equity" and serve as general manager.

Jamali breached this agreement by causing the initial dealership application (Caledon Hills LOI) to be rescinded due to an ownership dispute with a third partner (Totonchian), and then unilaterally applying for the dealership under a new entity (Caledon Chrysler) without Bateni.

The court also found Jamali's actions to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to Bateni's interests.

Furthermore, Bateni was found to have been wrongfully dismissed from Caledon Chrysler.

This case involved consolidated applications concerning a closely held corporation, Fitness Fanatix Inc. The Cornacchia Group sought an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, alleging Cotic mismanaged the business, failed to maintain proper records, and misappropriated cash.

Cotic, in turn, sought to enforce a buy-sell offer under s. 253(1) of the Act and the shareholders' agreement.

The court dismissed the Cornacchia Group's oppression application, finding their expectations were not violated and no misappropriation of cash by Cotic.

The court determined the correct shareholdings and Cotic's shareholder loan balance, rejecting claims that Wilkins and Correia were shareholders.

Cotic's application was allowed in part, granting him the first right to institute a new buy-sell offer based on the court's findings, as the original offer was not enforceable due to adjusted loan amounts and changed circumstances.

The applicants, Spacebridge Inc. and David Gelerman, sought an order allowing Gelerman to complete his term as a director of Baylin Technologies Inc. and for the release of share certificates held in trust.

Baylin and 2385796 Ontario Inc. brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that Gelerman breached Baylin’s Majority Voting Policy and an order for his resignation.

The court found Baylin’s Majority Voting Policy to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and in unfair disregard of the applicants' reasonable expectations, as it deviated materially from TSX requirements and was designed to remove Gelerman.

The court also found that Baylin was not entitled to set-off the share certificates against indemnity claims, as the shares had already been "paid" by delivery to the trustee.

The application was allowed, setting aside Baylin's policy and ordering the release of shares, and the cross-application was dismissed.

Bell Canada brought an application seeking declarations, an injunction, and a mandatory order against Cloudwifi Inc. and Gary Kenning for allegedly wrongful access and use of Bell's telecommunications equipment and breach of a prior settlement agreement.

Cloudwifi responded with a motion to dismiss or stay Bell's application, asserting the CRTC's exclusive jurisdiction, and a cross-application seeking declarations and damages against Bell.

The court dismissed Cloudwifi's motion to stay as moot due to a prior CRTC decision.

It found that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the regulatory aspects of equipment access, but the court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the alleged breach of the settlement agreement.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Bell's application, finding no breach of the settlement agreement and declining to issue declarations on regulatory matters.

Cloudwifi's cross-application was also dismissed, as it was conditional on the motion's outcome and involved claims better suited for an action.

The applicants, Calo Holdings Ltd. and Imperial Precast Corp., sought an order equalizing shareholder accounts and other remedies against the respondent, 2347186 Ontario Inc., in the context of a joint venture to operate a precast business through two corporations (2057461 Ontario Inc. and Northern Precast Corp.).

The applicants claimed Imperial was owed over $800,000 for contributions and sought payment from 205 or, alternatively, from 234 based on oppressive conduct.

The court dismissed the application, finding no agreement for overall equalization between the shareholders outside of the specific shareholder agreements for each corporation.

The court also determined that 234 did not owe money to Calo or Imperial, and therefore, 234's refusal to pay did not constitute oppressive conduct under the Business Corporations Act.

Imperial was deemed an unsecured creditor of the respective corporations, not 234.

Galleria Centre Inc. ("Galleria") applied for an order under s. 207 of the Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") to wind up a co-tenancy agreement or compel Terracap Galleria Centre Inc. ("Terracap") to purchase its interest in a condominium development project.

Terracap cross-applied for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the OBCA, alleging Galleria's refusal to participate was oppressive, and sought to purchase the property on just terms, with proceeds distributed according to the co-tenancy agreement.

The court dismissed Galleria's application, finding its "expectations" were not reasonable and that the co-tenancy agreement provided a mechanism for ending the relationship, rendering s. 207 unnecessary.

Terracap's claim for an oppression remedy was also dismissed, as Galleria's conduct, while potentially a breach of contract, was not oppressive given that contractual remedies were available.

However, Terracap's cross-application was allowed in part, with the court ordering the parties' disengagement to occur in accordance with Article 18 of the Co-Tenancy Agreement, which included the liquidation of assets and the application of Terracap's preferential distribution right.

The applicant, a former CEO of Aphria Inc., sought damages for the company's refusal to honor his stock options and, in the alternative, relief from forfeiture.

The court found that the stock options had expired according to the terms of the Aphria Incentive Stock Option Plan, which was incorporated by reference into the applicant's agreements.

Furthermore, the applicant was found to have breached a non-competition agreement by leasing land to a medical marijuana producer during the restricted term.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application, denying both the claim for damages and the request for equitable relief from forfeiture due to the applicant's breach of the non-competition agreement.

Your Neighbourhood Credit Union (YNCU), a non-party and first mortgagee, moved to set aside a prior judgment (Hainey J.) that granted an easement over its mortgaged lands, alleging lack of notice.

The motion was held in abeyance pending an appeal of a similar judgment (Conway J.), which was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal, finding no legal entitlement to an easement.

The court found YNCU's motion, continued by its assignee Silsym Inc., met the "forthwith" requirement of Rule 38.11 despite delays.

Given the Court of Appeal's ruling on similar facts, the court concluded there was no entitlement to the easements granted by the Hainey Judgment and allowed the motion, setting aside the judgment.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 for the moving party.

The applicants, children of the deceased, sought declarations of a constructive trust over the survivor's assets based on a mutual wills agreement, alleging breach due to a $200,000 gift and failure to provide information.

The court found that a constructive trust only arises upon breach of the mutual wills agreement, not automatically upon the first testator's death, particularly when the survivor receives assets absolutely.

It was determined that the survivor's gift was not substantial enough to defeat the agreement, nor was her failure to provide information a breach, as the applicants were not beneficiaries under the deceased's will.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Bella Senior Care Residences Inc. (Bella) sought a declaration that certain correspondence and evidence related to discussions with The Canada Life Assurance Company (Canada Life) and Stonebridge Financial Corporation (Stonebridge) were admissible and not protected by settlement privilege.

Canada Life asserted settlement privilege over these communications, which concerned Bella's defaults under a Credit Agreement and Canada Life's subsequent demands.

The court applied a three-part test for settlement privilege, finding that while a litigious dispute existed, Canada Life's communications did not constitute genuine attempts to negotiate a settlement but rather ultimatums to enforce or expand its rights.

Consequently, the court declared the documents not subject to settlement privilege and allowed Bella's motion, awarding costs.

Intact Insurance Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by J.P. Towing Service & Storage Ltd. concerning towing and storage fees.

J.P. Towing cross-moved for various declarations and consolidation.

The court dismissed Intact's motion, finding that while most of J.P. Towing's claims (vexatious litigant, prohibitive order, consolidation, and monetary/punitive damages) were not viable, its claim for a declaration that the daily storage rate of $70.00, as determined in a prior Small Claims Court decision (Sherwood), was res judicata against Intact, was valid.

The court allowed J.P. Towing's cross-motion and granted summary judgment on this specific declaration, holding that Intact was bound by the Sherwood decision regarding the daily storage rate when acting on behalf of its insureds.

The Landlord, Varsity Investments Inc., sued the Tenant, 1666862 Ontario Inc., and its guarantors for breach of a commercial lease, claiming accelerated rent and damages after the Tenant ceased operations.

The Landlord alleged the Tenant was in default due to insolvency, abandonment, and repudiation.

The Tenant counterclaimed for wrongful termination of the lease, arguing the Landlord's distress was illegal.

The court found that the Tenant was not in breach of the lease, did not repudiate it, and that the Landlord's actions of changing locks and purporting to distrain for non-existent arrears constituted an illegal distress, thereby terminating the lease.

The Landlord's action was dismissed, and the Tenant's counterclaim for damages was allowed.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions brought by the plaintiffs and defendants by counterclaim against Tanvir Farid.

The plaintiffs sought to continue an interlocutory injunction against Farid for defamatory online postings, amend previous orders, review the execution of an Anton Piller Order (APO), and gain access to seized data.

Additionally, the plaintiffs and other defendants by counterclaim (Maanit Zemel, Hexigent Consulting Inc., Ryan Duquette, and Jason Green) moved to strike Farid's counterclaim.

The court continued the interlocutory injunction until trial, found the APO was properly executed, and granted access to seized data subject to privilege review.

The court denied the plaintiffs' requests to delete a paragraph from a prior order and to issue a mandatory order for Farid to remove defamatory material at the interlocutory stage.

Crucially, Farid's counterclaim, alleging fraud upon the court and improper conduct by the plaintiffs, their counsel, and investigators, was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court found the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious, and was barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

Costs were awarded against Farid.

The plaintiffs, two insurance companies (RSA/CNS), sued 2421593 Canadian Inc. (formerly Vancity Insurance Services Ltd. - VCI) and others for breach of contract.

The central issue was whether a legally enforceable contract existed for the exclusive provision of habitational insurance by RSA/CNS to VCI, and if so, whether VCI wrongfully terminated it.

The court found that the parties had entered into a legally binding agreement by September 11, 2008, for a five-year exclusive term with a two-year termination notice.

VCI breached this agreement by terminating it on September 9, 2009, without the required notice.

The court dismissed the action against Vancouver City Savings Credit Union due to lack of evidence for a conspiracy claim.

Damages for breach of contract against 2421593 Canadian Inc. are to be calculated based on a specified loss ratio and loss period.