Martin Mendelzon

The plaintiff, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., sought summary judgment for specific performance of options to purchase real property.

The defendant, KKP Investments Inc., brought a cross-motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process and for payment of rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings with a related "Main Action" and because it was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was also dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff's new action was a matter of form over substance given prior settlement attempts.

The defendant's request for interim rent was withdrawn.

Both actions were ordered to be tried together.

The plaintiffs, former employees and shareholders, brought a motion for refusals and undertakings and leave to amend their Statement of Claim in an oppression action.

The defendants opposed the disclosure of documents related to company valuation post-commencement of the action, arguing the valuation date should be the action's start.

The court granted leave to amend and ruled that post-commencement valuation documents were relevant, citing judicial discretion in selecting the fairest valuation date in oppression cases.

The court also addressed procedural issues regarding questions arising from undertakings, prioritizing efficiency under Rule 1.04.

The applicants, former owners of CryptoGlobal, sought the appointment of an independent inspector to investigate HyperBlock Inc. following an amalgamation.

They alleged oppressive conduct, conflict of interest by HyperBlock's CEO (Sean Walsh) in the acquisition of Project Spokane assets, overvaluation, and a significant post-closing decline in HyperBlock's value not fully explained by market forces.

The court found a prima facie case of oppression and an "index of suspicion" warranting an investigation, citing issues like cash flow irregularities, resignations of financial officers, lack of transparency, and potential conflicts of interest among management and directors.

The court ordered the appointment of BDO Canada Limited as an inspector.

This costs endorsement addresses three motions within a consolidated proceeding.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Adair parties (defendants) against the Pichelli parties (plaintiffs) for their successful summary judgment motions, finding that the allegations of fraud and malfeasance were unsubstantiated.

For the summary judgment motion brought by the Vuletic defendants against the Pichelli parties, costs were reserved to the trial judge due to unresolved factual disputes, including an allegation of forgery.

Finally, for a motion to vary a previous decision regarding Ante Kegalj, the Pichelli parties were awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly reduced from their claim, due to the straightforward nature of the motion and issues with their bill of costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay an Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The action concerned a dispute over payment obligations under a Term Sheet governing an upstream oil and gas rights transaction in Iran.

The Term Sheet contained a clause providing that it would be governed by English law and that the parties agreed to attorn to the courts of England.

The motion judge had applied the strong cause test and stayed the action in favour of England.

The Court of Appeal found that the forum selection clause was not an exclusive jurisdiction clause and therefore the strong cause test did not apply.

Conducting a fresh forum non conveniens analysis, the court found that the respondents had not demonstrated that England was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside.

The plaintiffs, former owners of Vape Brands International Inc., sought a Mareva injunction and an injunction to restrain the spin-off of a marijuana-related business to Hystyle Brands Inc. They sued the defendants for breach of a share purchase agreement and oppression, alleging unpaid promissory notes.

The defendants counterclaimed for fraudulent inducement.

The court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief, finding that while the plaintiffs had a strong prima facie case, they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The court emphasized that the traditional criteria for interlocutory injunctions apply in oppression remedy cases, except in rare circumstances, and that the defendants also had a strong prima facie counterclaim.

This decision addresses a motion brought by the plaintiffs (Pichelli Parties and Caroti Parties) to amend previous summary judgment reasons and for the judge to recuse herself from re-hearing a specific summary judgment motion.

The original reasons had been released without oral submissions from the plaintiffs on the Kegalj summary judgment motion, which had been previously adjourned.

The court found it had jurisdiction to amend its decision before a formal order was entered, as the failure to hear oral submissions constituted a miscarriage of justice due to a violation of the *audi alteram partem* rule.

The court also determined that a different judge should hear the re-argued summary judgment motion due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, while the original judge would remain as the case management judge.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens due to a forum selection clause designating England.

The court found jurisdiction simpliciter in Ontario based on contract formation principles but ultimately granted a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens, giving effect to the forum selection clause.

A lawyer appealed a professional misconduct finding based on in-court incivility during a securities prosecution.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied and accepted the disciplinary framework, but found its application unreasonable on the record.

The Court concluded the allegations were made in good faith with sufficient factual foundation in context.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they had oppressed the respondent shareholder in a closely-held family corporation and ordering them to purchase her shares for $4.25 million.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by not directing a trial, by finding oppression despite the respondent's alleged misconduct in a related family dispute, and by improperly mixing and matching expert valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a trial was unnecessary under the Hryniak principles, that the alleged family misconduct was irrelevant to the corporate duties owed, and that the application judge properly chose between competing expert methodologies to determine fair value.

This is an appeal from a Master's order concerning two issues: security for costs and solicitor-client privilege over certain emails.

The security for costs issue was resolved by agreement during the appeal.

The primary issue remaining was whether emails sent by the plaintiff to his solicitor using a corporate email account were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that solicitor-client privilege, being a fundamental and substantive principle in Canadian law, was not waived despite the inadvertent disclosure of the emails.

The court distinguished solicitor-client privilege from general privacy expectations and rejected the application of American jurisprudence due to its narrower interpretation of privilege.

The moving party sought to lift a stay of proceedings previously granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Following the stay, the moving party's attempt to pursue a class action in the United States for pre-explosion misrepresentations was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the responding party conceded the claim was governed by Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal found these new developments constituted facts arising after the order that justified lifting the stay to avoid an injustice, allowing the moving party to proceed with the claim in Ontario.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario seeking $400 million in damages and served the defendants in Guatemala, a non-Hague Convention state, in accordance with Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants appealed the validation of service, arguing that Rule 17.05(2) must be interpreted in accordance with customary international law and comity, which would require service to comply with Guatemalan law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that service under Rule 17.05(2) does not violate Guatemalan sovereignty or international law, and that the rule provides a clear choice of service methods that rebuts any presumption of conformity with foreign law.

Following an earlier decision requiring certain respondents to purchase the applicant’s shares in a corporation for $4.25 million, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was lower than the judgment amount and sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the extensive litigation history, overlapping issues involving two related corporate interests, and the respondents’ conduct that complicated document production and valuation.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors and recognizing the respondents’ obstructive conduct, the court fixed substantial indemnity costs for fees and taxes and allowed claimed disbursements and expert valuation expenses in full.

The applicant brought an oppression application against her father and brother, alleging they conducted the family business in an oppressive manner.

The applicant was secretly removed as a director of the corporation, denied financial information, and pressured to sell her shares at a dictated price.

The court found the respondents' conduct was abusive, coercive, and unfairly disregarded the applicant's reasonable expectations as a shareholder and director.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the applicant's shares at a fair value of $4.25 million, declining to apply a minority discount.

The parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to questions refused during examinations for discovery in an action alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract against an investment advisor and his firm.

The Master ordered the defendants to answer questions regarding the advisor's qualifications and the firm's legal position on vicarious liability, but found questions about the advisor's personal finances and other clients irrelevant.

The Master ordered the plaintiffs to answer questions regarding the calculation of their claimed damages and the factual basis for their allegations regarding loan arrangements and unsuitable investments, rejecting the argument that these questions were improper requests for particulars.

The appellant appealed the summary dismissal of his defamation action against the author and publisher of a book about a street gang.

The appellant claimed a passage comparing him to a movie character carried defamatory meanings, including that he was a murderer and a psychopath.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the words were not capable of bearing those defamatory meanings and that true innuendo had not been properly pleaded.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the motion judge's costs award from substantial indemnity to partial indemnity, finding that Rule 49 did not automatically warrant substantial indemnity costs for a successful defendant.

The respondents sold trademarks and a customer base to a corporation under a purchase agreement, with the purchase price payable by post-dated cheques.

The appellant, the sole director of the corporation, signed the agreement personally under a clause requiring him to cover any bounced cheques.

After the corporation went into receivership and cheques bounced, the respondents obtained partial summary judgment against the appellant on the personal guarantee.

The appellant appealed, arguing inadequate reasons, lack of a liability finding against the corporation, and that the clause was not a guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons adequate, noting a guarantee is enforceable even if the principal debtor is bankrupt, and concluding the clause clearly constituted a personal guarantee.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash an appeal from an order that declared and validated service of a fresh statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not determine the real matters in dispute or deprive the responding parties of any substantive defence.

The motion was allowed, the appeal was quashed, and the matter was transferred to the Divisional Court where the responding parties could seek leave to appeal.

The applicant sought to enforce letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court compelling Ontario non-parties to provide testimony and documents for use in U.S. antitrust class actions alleging polyurethane foam price‑fixing.

The court applied the established criteria governing enforcement of foreign letters rogatory, including relevance, necessity, availability of evidence elsewhere, public policy concerns, specificity, and burden.

The court found the criteria satisfied for two respondents and held that enforcement would not violate Canadian sovereignty or the respondents’ Charter protections against self‑incrimination.

The application was granted with conditions requiring examinations to proceed under Ontario procedural rules and subject to Charter and Evidence Act protections, while the application against a third respondent was dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary basis.