Michael Donsky

The Applicant sought to quash a City of Toronto by-law (By-law 1515-2019, section 1(A)) that limited the issuance of new payday loan establishment licenses to renewals only, arguing it was ultra vires the City of Toronto Act, 2006, discriminatory, and in conflict with federal and provincial legislation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the by-law to be a valid exercise of the City's broad authority for consumer protection, not discriminatory in the municipal law sense, and not in conflict with higher legislation, as it did not prohibit all payday loan operations nor frustrate the purpose of the relevant Acts.

The plaintiffs sought penalties against the defendants for their continued contempt of court orders requiring them to provide an accounting of $9,000,000 in allegedly defrauded funds, information about luxury automobiles, contact information, and disclosure.

The court found that the defendants had not purged their contempt and provided implausible explanations for their non-compliance.

As a penalty, the court granted judgment against the defendants, striking their ability to defend the action, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought interim orders to compel the sale of a property and non-party document disclosure, alleging oppression and fraud by the defendants.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test for the mandatory interlocutory injunction.

It found a strong prima facie case of oppression due to the defendants' breach of shareholder agreements, diversion of funds, and lack of credibility, evidenced by their non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court approved the plaintiffs' proposed sale of the property for $12 million over the defendants' $15 million offer, citing the plaintiffs' offer's certainty and the defendants' unreliability.

The court also granted the non-party production order.

The applicants, former officers of the respondent corporation, brought applications for advance funding of their legal fees to defend an action alleging complex commercial fraud.

The applications were brought pursuant to the corporation's Unanimous Shareholders Agreement and section 124 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test to determine if advance funding should be denied due to bad faith.

The court dismissed the application of the former CEO, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud had been established against him in a related Mareva injunction motion.

The court granted the application of the former COO, as the evidence did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against him.

Following a successful injunction motion, the Plaintiff, Ontario Graphite Ltd., sought substantial indemnity costs of $130,886.09.

The Defendants argued for costs to be reserved or in the cause.

The court found the Plaintiff achieved substantial success on the motion, which involved important issues.

Considering the extensive materials, the utility of the information for the ongoing action, and the Plaintiff's reasonable settlement efforts, the court awarded the Plaintiff $80,000.00 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to be paid within 60 days.

This award is without prejudice to further submissions on costs at trial.

The plaintiff, a graphite mining company, sought an interlocutory injunction against two former senior executives and their new employer, a competing graphite company.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached their fiduciary duties, confidentiality obligations, and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements by surreptitiously securing employment with the competitor and usurping a corporate opportunity regarding a processing facility.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm due to the highly competitive nature of the industry and potential loss of first-to-market advantage, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distributions, and fraud in connection with a forex trading Ponzi scheme, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent market and director/officer bans, significant administrative penalties, and disgorgement against the principal architects of the fraud.

For respondents who acted as referrers and were not found to have engaged in fraud, the Commission ordered five-year market and director/officer bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement of commissions received.

Costs were apportioned among the respondents based on their level of participation and cooperation.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the placement of a deceased police officer's name on a memorial wall.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the grounds that the estate lacked standing.

The Tribunal held that an estate is not a 'person' capable of experiencing discrimination under the Human Rights Code, particularly where the alleged discrimination occurred after the individual's death.

The application was dismissed for lack of standing.

The appellant, a judgment creditor of a corporation, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its oppression claim against the corporation's directors and shareholders.

The appellant argued the respondents acted oppressively by failing to set aside funds to satisfy its judgment while repaying shareholder loans and other creditors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's finding that the respondents did not strip assets from a profitable company, but rather funded it, and the appellant had no reasonable expectation that a reserve would be maintained for its contingent claim.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a settlement hearing regarding Shawn Lesperance, the Treasurer and a director of Goldbridge Financial Inc. The respondent acknowledged receiving monies in violation of the Securities Act and an outstanding Commission order.

The Panel approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest.

The respondent was prohibited from trading in securities and acting as a director or officer of any issuer for three years, and ordered to pay $1,000 in investigation costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim against his former employer.

The trial judge had found that the appellant resigned when he stated he could not work for a rival who was appointed president.

The Court of Appeal overturned the finding of resignation, concluding the appellant was wrongfully dismissed.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the nine-month notice period was reasonable, that the appellant suffered no damages for lost income because he mitigated his losses with higher-paying subsequent employment, and that the unambiguous language of the employer's stock option plans precluded the appellant from exercising options that would have vested during the notice period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion based on the record and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $12,500.