Lederman

The applicants and respondents formed an incorporated partnership to acquire and develop a hotel and adjacent lands.

The applicants alleged that the respondent unilaterally altered the corporation's capital structure to give himself absolute voting control, engaged in self-dealing, and funneled corporate funds to personal accounts.

The court found the respondent's conduct constituted oppression under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

Given the complete breakdown of trust and lack of alternative remedies, the court ordered the winding up of the corporation and appointed a liquidator.

The 74-year-old plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after 31 years of service with the defendant construction company.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff had voluntarily retired in 2010 and was only working on an as-needed basis.

The court found no evidence of retirement and concluded the plaintiff was terminated without cause in October 2012.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, finding the plaintiff was not required to mitigate by accepting a demeaning demotion to a flagman position.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent a former co-founder and his new company from using a confidential 'Diagnosis Database' for predictive modelling in the insurance industry.

The former co-founder had sold his interest in the plaintiff company and subsequently agreed to conduct a benchmarking study for a former client of the plaintiff.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the misappropriation of trade secrets, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from unfair competition, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Regional Municipality of Peel and the Crown regarding the administration of his Ontario Works and ODSP benefits.

The defendants brought motions to strike the amended statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff's complaints should have been pursued through the statutory appeal routes under the respective social assistance acts and the Human Rights Code, rather than by way of a civil action.

Furthermore, the pleadings contained only bald allegations without supporting material facts.

The motions were granted, the amended statement of claim was struck, and the action was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff, a 42-year-old magazine publisher with 16.5 years of continuous service (including time with a predecessor employer), brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court awarded a 16-month reasonable notice period.

The court also resolved disputes over the calculation of commissions and bonuses during the notice period, projecting commissions based on the plaintiff's historical performance and the new magazine's total revenue.

A trust and accounting approach was ordered for mitigation during the remainder of the notice period.

The defendant brought a motion to stay a defamation action, arguing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction or that another forum was more convenient.

The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, sued the defendant, a Quebec resident, over blog posts accessible in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test, finding that the tort of defamation crystallizes where the material is read.

Since the blog was accessed and republished via Twitter in Ontario, the tort was committed in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the defendant failed to show another forum was clearly more appropriate.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff claimed permanent impairment of his left arm from a motor vehicle accident, but the defendants sought medical records relating to prior injuries to the same arm in 2004 and 2006.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by weighing evidence to determine relevance rather than relying on the pleadings, which clearly put the pre-existing condition in issue.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested medical records.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out pleadings of conspiracy in the amended Statement of Claim.

The defendants sought an adjournment pending the outcome of leave applications to the Court of Appeal in related Divisional Court decisions, which was denied due to prior agreements between counsel.

Applying the binding Divisional Court decision in Jevco, the court held that the doctrine of merger could not be raised at the pleadings stage to strike a conspiracy claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $92,100 for unpaid loans, supported by three promissory notes signed by the defendant.

The defendant argued the matter required a trial due to credibility issues, claiming she had repaid earlier loans, that later funds were either 'parked' money or owed real estate commissions, and that she signed the final promissory note under duress.

The court found the defendant's version lacked credibility and corroborating evidence, while the plaintiff's case was supported by the promissory notes.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $92,100 plus costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim and adjourn the trial.

He sought to add a new cause of action based on a holograph will he claimed to have recently discovered, which would entitle him to the entirety of his deceased brother's estate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a triable issue of discoverability, as his explanation for misplacing and finding the will lacked due diligence.

Furthermore, the court held that granting the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The defendants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to sever the claims of two plaintiffs who alleged sexual misconduct against their deceased family physician.

The Master had dismissed the motion primarily because it was brought at a late stage in the litigation, after discoveries were completed and the action was set down for trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master made no error of law and reasonably exercised her discretion in concluding that the conduct of the trial, including rulings on the admissibility of similar fact evidence, should be left to the trial judge.