Pierre Champagne

The applicant, a minority shareholder and former director, brought applications alleging oppression and constructive dismissal against the majority shareholder and the respondent corporations.

The court found the constructive dismissal claim was statute-barred and lacked merit, as the change in compensation method did not constitute a substantial breach of an essential term.

While most oppression claims regarding shareholder loans and business decisions were dismissed under the business judgment rule, the court found the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicant's rights by failing to provide timely access to financial information.

The court declined to appoint a receiver-manager, instead ordering the sale of the corporation's primary real estate asset and an accounting of the proceeds.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiff's ten-year medical negligence action and sought their costs.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for portions of the litigation, caused significant delays and failed to accept multiple offers to settle.

The defendants sought costs in amounts lower than partial indemnity, recognizing the plaintiff's difficult financial circumstances.

The court further reduced the requested amounts, ordering the plaintiff to pay a total of $270,000 in costs to the defendants.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, sought dependant's relief from his estate.

The deceased's two sons also brought claims asserting ownership over two properties, arguing they were not estate assets.

The court found that one property was held in trust for one son and was not an estate asset, while the other property belonged to the estate as the other son failed to establish a constructive trust, resulting trust, or valid gift.

Regarding dependant's relief, the court applied the four-part test under the Succession Law Reform Act, balancing the applicant's needs against the beneficiaries' interests.

The court ordered a lump sum for past support and ongoing monthly support to be funded by an annuity with a reversionary interest to the estate.

The applicant brought a motion seeking consolidation of two oppression remedy applications (2019 and 2023), an order compelling respondents to comply with court orders for audited financial statements, reimbursement of his deposit, a timetable for remaining steps, and written submissions on oppression and receiver appointment.

The court ordered the applications be heard together rather than consolidated, to preserve the respondents' limitation period defences.

The court compelled the respondents to provide answers to the applicant's queries regarding anomalies in the draft financial statements within 30 days and ordered completion of audited financial statements within specified timeframes.

The applicant was ordered to confirm his shareholder loan account within 30 days to allow completion of the audit.

The appellants challenged the validity of a clause in the will of Jeanne Dagenais Gravelle that granted her daughter Jocelyne Gravelle an option to purchase the family home for the amount of the remaining mortgage.

The appellants argued the clause was unenforceable because the mortgage had been fully paid at the time of the testator's death.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding the option clause valid and enforceable.

The court determined that the testator's intention was to allow Jocelyne to purchase the home even if the mortgage balance was zero, and that Jocelyne would be responsible for mortgage discharge fees as consideration for the purchase.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion to remove the defendants' lawyers of record.

Both parties filed extensive written costs submissions that significantly exceeded the page limits and formatting requirements set out in the court's previous ruling.

Rather than rejecting the non-compliant materials or deciding the matter on the excessive written record, the court ordered that the issue of costs be resolved through a two-hour oral hearing.

The parties were prohibited from filing any further materials without leave of the court.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to remove the defendants' joint counsel of record due to conflicts of interest and seeking leave to amend their statement of claim in an ongoing estate and corporate oppression dispute.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike an expert affidavit relied upon by the plaintiffs.

The court found that the defendants had procedurally abandoned their motion to strike the affidavit.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remove the defendants' counsel, finding that joint representation of the various defendants created severe conflicts of interest that threatened public confidence in the administration of justice.

Finally, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim and stayed the action until a litigation administrator is appointed for the deceased's estate.

The applicants brought a motion challenging the validity of their mother's will and the interpretation of a clause granting one of the respondents the option to purchase the family home for the remaining mortgage amount.

The court found the will valid, as the testator had acknowledged her signature in the presence of two witnesses, satisfying the strict compliance requirements of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court also applied the armchair rule to interpret the purchase option, concluding the testator intended for the respondent to have the option to acquire the home even though the mortgage balance was zero at the time of death.

The estate trustee was ordered to pass accounts.

The applicant, Lise Cassan, sought dependent's relief from the estate of Jean-Guy Villeneuve, claiming they lived in a conjugal relationship from 2006 until his death in 2022 and that he financially supported her.

The estate disputed the cohabitation and support, arguing she maintained a separate apartment and he had other relationships.

Applying the Molodowich factors, the court found that the applicant was a dependent spouse who had cohabited continuously with the deceased for over three years and received ongoing, systematic financial support.

The court granted interim support of $2,000 per month to the applicant, pending final disposition.

The applicant mother sought the sale and equal division of a co-owned property with her son, the respondent.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the applicant's interest was held in trust for him and a transfer of title without consideration, arguing unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for sale, finding her conduct malicious, oppressive, and vexatious, and that a sale would result in unjust enrichment for her.

The court declared the applicant's 50% interest in the property to be held in constructive trust for the respondent and ordered its transfer to him.

The respondent's claim for damages related to the applicant's refusal to refinance was dismissed due to his delay in seeking relief.

The Municipalité de Casselman sought a declaratory order confirming its exclusive ownership of the Martin-Filion laneway and an order for the respondents to remove personal property and structures from it.

Two respondents, Louis Godard and Sylvie Cléroux, contested the application, asserting that a verbal agreement with the former mayor in 1986 had transferred ownership of portions of the laneway to them.

The court found no objective evidence of a binding oral contract, citing the absence of essential terms such as a clear transfer date, agreed price, and definitively identified parties.

The court also determined that the doctrine of part performance did not apply, as the respondents' actions on the laneway predated or were independent of the alleged agreement and did not constitute detrimental reliance.

Consequently, the Municipality's application was granted, confirming its ownership and ordering the removal of encroachments.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant in 2022 but later discovered an error in the defendant's corporate number.

After successfully amending the title of proceedings, the plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to vary the 2022 default judgment to reflect the correct corporate number.

The court found the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence and the defendant suffered no prejudice.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This is a costs endorsement following successful motions by the State of California and the Attorney General of Quebec to dismiss claims brought against them by W.O. Stinson & Son Limited.

The court had previously dismissed Stinson's claim against California based on state immunity under the State Immunity Act and against Quebec due to Crown immunity.

Stinson argued for no costs, citing unfair treatment due to the cancellation of Ontario's cap-and-trade program and alleged profit by California and Quebec from Stinson's losses.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no reason to deny costs to the successful parties.

The court then assessed the reasonableness of the requested partial indemnity costs, reducing the amounts sought by both California and Quebec, and specifically reducing Quebec's expert witness disbursement.

The plaintiffs brought an action seeking declarations that the defendant, Ashcroft Homes – Eastboro Inc., was not entitled to terminate their agreements of purchase and sale for residential homes.

The plaintiffs argued that the early termination condition (Condition 2 of Schedule U) was contrary to the Tarion Addendum, was invoked untimely, or that Ashcroft breached its obligation to take commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The court found that Condition 2 was consistent with the Tarion Addendum, Ashcroft terminated the agreements in a timely manner, and Ashcroft did take all commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The action was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The plaintiff, Service de Pneus Lavoie Outaouais Inc., sought to amend the title of proceeding and vary a default judgment obtained against '2189224 Ontario Inc. o/a Tiremag' due to a clerical error in the defendant's corporate number, which should have been '2184224 Ontario Inc.'.

The court granted leave to amend the title of proceeding under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding no prejudice to the defendant given the history of dealings and the defendant's failure to correct the error or defend the original action.

However, the request to vary the default judgment under Rule 59.06(1) was adjourned to allow the defendant an opportunity to respond, emphasizing the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04(1) and the potential for prejudice if the defendant had relied on the incorrect numbering.

The defendant moved to stay a defamation action, arguing it was based on evidence obtained in violation of the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01.

The evidence in question was a surreptitious recording voluntarily attached as an exhibit to an affidavit in a separate family litigation proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the deemed undertaking rule applies only to evidence obtained through compulsory discovery mechanisms, not to evidence voluntarily put forward in an affidavit.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to destroy copies of two allegedly privileged emails produced in the defendant's affidavit of documents.

The emails contained legal advice regarding a property dispute.

The court found that the defendant had waived solicitor-client privilege by producing the documents, allowing them to be used during examinations for discovery without objection, and relying on them in communications with a co-defendant.

The motion was dismissed.

Melynda Layton sought to amend her statement of claim against the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and the City of Ottawa.

The motion was granted in part.

The court allowed amendments for moral damages against the City and some amendments against the Association, provided references to a third-party property (11 Rosemount Street/Avenue) and multiple rights-of-way were removed.

The court denied amendments that relied on unspecified by-laws, legislation, or regulatory frameworks against the City, deeming them impermissibly vague.

The court also granted the City additional discovery time, finding that the three-hour limit under Rule 76.04(2) could be extended for just cause.

The applicant, a former director and minority shareholder, brought a motion seeking an order for the respondent corporation BCE Realty Ltd. to produce an audited financial statement for 2022, alleging financial impropriety and oppression.

The court found the applicant had standing as a former director under the Ontario Business Corporations Act's oppression remedy provisions, despite not being a direct shareholder.

The court granted the order for the audited financial statement but required the applicant to pay the cost in advance, with the right to seek reimbursement at the end of the litigation.