Natalia Vandervoort

The plaintiff, a waste disposal broker, brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the defendant waste disposal service provider breached non-solicitation, non-compete, and confidentiality provisions of a four-year waste disposal services agreement, as well as the duty of good faith.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for judgment on unpaid invoices totalling $37,611.47.

The court interpreted the restrictive covenants narrowly, finding they were geographically limited to Ontario, that the definition of "GIC Client" required an active commercial relationship, and that business relationships were location-specific rather than entity-wide.

The plaintiff failed to establish any breach of the restrictive covenants, confidentiality obligations, or duty of good faith.

The plaintiff's motion and action were dismissed, and the defendant was granted judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment on a settlement allegedly reached during a pre-trial conference.

On the return of the motion, the defendants sought an adjournment to retain new counsel, having previously indicated they would not file responding materials.

Finding the adjournment request to be a potential abuse of process to delay payment, the court granted the adjournment but ordered the corporate defendant to immediately pay the $1,650,000 settlement amount into trust on an interim basis, along with $10,000 in costs.

The applicant sought to rescind or set aside a longstanding vexatious litigant order arising from extensive litigation connected to real estate discipline proceedings and related disputes.

The court held that an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act is not a vehicle to review the correctness of the original order or re-litigate the underlying merits.

Applying the established rescission framework, the court found no evidence that the applicant had changed litigation conduct, accepted responsibility for past misconduct, advanced a potentially meritorious new claim, or moved on from the original controversies.

The application was dismissed, with costs to be addressed only if not agreed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure and attendance at a judgment debtor examination.

The defendant claimed ill health prevented his compliance but provided insufficient medical evidence.

The court applied the three-pronged test for civil contempt and found that the defendant intentionally breached clear and unequivocal court orders.

The defendant was found in contempt but granted a final opportunity to purge the contempt before a sentencing hearing.

RBC Dominion Securities and Royal Bank of Canada Europe sued Crew Gold Corporation for a Success Fee under an investment banking engagement letter.

The parties' dispute centered on whether RBC was entitled to a Success Fee following an unanticipated takeover of Crew by Severstal, in which RBC played no role.

The trial judge found that a causal link between RBC's services and the transaction was required for the Success Fee to be payable, and dismissed RBC's action.

On appeal, RBC argued the trial judge committed extricable errors of law in interpreting the Agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the Agreement contemplated RBC's involvement in the transaction process and that the Success Fee was meant to reward RBC for its success in completing a transaction through its financial advisory services.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of violating section 122(1)(c) of the Ontario Securities Act.

The first violation involved entering into a joint venture agreement that qualified as an investment contract and security without being registered to trade in securities.

The second violation involved breaching a Cease Trade Order by entering into promissory note agreements while prohibited from trading in securities.

The accused, a former police officer, had promoted U.S. real estate properties to Canadian investors, making representations about turn-key investments and property management.

Many properties were in poor condition and promises were not fulfilled.

The court imposed fines, probation, community service, and restitution orders rather than a custodial sentence, finding the conduct closer to carelessness than deliberate fraud.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim and dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs had sued their mortgagees, mortgage broker, and solicitors, alleging collusion and a criminal interest rate after defaulting on their mortgages.

The court found the statement of claim was inadequately pleaded, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and could not be cured by amendment.

Furthermore, proceeding with the action would constitute an abuse of process as it would re-litigate issues already determined in a related mortgage action.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada Europe Limited (collectively "RBC") sued Crew Gold Corporation ("Crew") for a success fee under a financial advisory agreement.

RBC argued that the fee was payable for third-party share purchases that resulted in a change of control of Crew, even without RBC's direct involvement.

Crew contended that the agreement required its involvement in any transaction triggering the fee and that the fee was contingent on RBC's provision of financial advisory services.

The court interpreted the contract as requiring a causal link between RBC's activities and the completed transaction.

Finding no ambiguity in the contract language, and considering the factual matrix, the court concluded that the third-party open market transactions were not within the contemplation of the parties when the agreement was executed.

RBC's action was dismissed.

Following a successful application for leave to commence a derivative action, the applicant sought costs of $14,305.97.

The respondent conceded entitlement but argued the amount was excessive, suggesting a range of $3,000 to $5,000.

Considering the straightforward nature of the application, the volume of materials, and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant, a director of a software corporation, sought leave under section 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action against the other two directors.

The applicant alleged the respondents breached their fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate assets and diverting revenues to a competing company.

The responding director argued the claim was personal and should be pursued via an oppression remedy.

The court granted leave, finding the applicant acted in good faith, the proposed action was in the corporation's best interests, and the claim sought redress solely for wrongs done to the corporation rather than personal interests.