Lia Zweig Boritz

The applicants brought an application under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to declare that an arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear claims brought by the respondent in a family business dispute.

The dispute centered on whether the respondent, who was a shareholder of a corporate partner but not a 'partner' or 'principal' under the partnership agreement, was a 'party' entitled to invoke the arbitration clause.

Applying the principles of contractual interpretation from Sattva, the court found that the plain wording of the agreement, including the recitals and enurement clause, contemplated that shareholders of the partners were parties.

The court concluded that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the respondent's claims for dissolution and increased compensation, as well as the applicants' claims regarding management compensation.

Following a liability decision that restricted the developer's ability to charge purchasers for certain utility and infrastructure adjustments, the court ordered an accounting.

The developer failed to provide evidence supporting its claimed adjustments, refused to answer undertakings, and ultimately did not attend the damages assessment hearing.

The court drew adverse inferences, found the developer was not entitled to the adjustments, ordered reimbursement of $1,303,651.15 to the purchasers, and awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the developer's unreasonable conduct.

The appellant, a foreign trustee based in Liechtenstein, appealed the dismissal of its motions to stay or dismiss two actions for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or forum non conveniens.

The actions alleged that the principals of Bridging Finance Inc. misappropriated funds and transferred them to a trust managed by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the tort of fraud was committed in Ontario and contracts connected to the dispute were made in Ontario.

The appellant failed to rebut these presumptive connecting factors, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant landlord commenced an application seeking various relief, including termination of commercial leases and a declaration regarding rent adjustments.

The respondent tenant brought a motion under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the application in favour of arbitration.

The court applied the Peace River framework and found that the matters in dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement in the leases.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The plaintiff judgment creditor brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment which found that the defendant debtor fraudulently conveyed his interest in a jointly-owned property to his wife.

The wife subsequently sold that property and purchased a new one.

The court ordered the sale of the new property, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of its net proceeds, including any increase in value.

The court declined to grant the wife additional time to obtain financing, balanced carrying costs against occupation rent, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The applicant, a hedge fund shareholder, brought an urgent application under section 248 of the OBCA seeking to adjourn the respondent corporation's annual general and special meeting of shareholders and to reset the record date.

The applicant alleged the notice was non-compliant with the OBCA and that the board acted oppressively by setting a timeline that effectively prevented shareholders from nominating an alternative slate of directors.

The court found that the respondent was not an "offering corporation" and had met all statutory notice requirements under sections 95(4) and 96(1) of the OBCA.

The court held that the notice procedures followed past practice and did not breach the reasonable expectations of shareholders as established in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders.

The application was dismissed with costs of $75,000 to the respondent.

The appellant, a property developer, purchased contaminated land in 1990 and commenced an action in January 2004 seeking damages for soil contamination.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding the action was statute-barred because the appellant had actual knowledge of the contamination by April 1991, triggering a six-year limitation period that had expired long before the action was commenced.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in principle, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and failed to consider whether its continuing nuisance claim was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's knowledge of contamination in 1991, albeit to an uncertain extent, was sufficient to trigger the limitation period, and the appellant was not required to know the full extent of the contamination for the period to begin running.

The applicants sought to set aside or appeal four arbitral awards arising from a dispute over a $20 million charitable donation and associated naming rights for a community campus.

The arbitrator had found that the applicants breached their obligations and declared that the respondents were entitled to revoke the naming rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding no jurisdictional errors, breaches of procedural fairness, or extricable errors of law.

The court held that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals and that the arbitrator's findings on issues including contract formation, relief from forfeiture, and damages were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The respondents' cross-application to recognize and enforce the arbitral awards was granted.

The court considered the allocation and quantum of costs following summary judgment in favour of Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR), where the third party, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited (CCCL), sought costs from the plaintiff, 863880 Ontario Limited.

The court found that exceptional circumstances justified ordering the plaintiff to pay CCCL’s costs, but not the full amount claimed.

The court directed a revised calculation, holding the plaintiff responsible for half of CCCL’s reasonable costs up to the discontinuance of a related third party claim, and all reasonable costs thereafter, subject to a 20% reduction and further specific deductions.

The court awarded the Applicants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $88,743.94 after finding that the Respondent developer was not entitled to charge certain adjustment amounts on closing under the agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found the Developer's conduct increased costs but did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision reviews the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, referencing the Developer's failure to provide information and the resulting bifurcation of the proceeding.

The applicants, purchasers of units in a townhouse complex, sought a declaration that the developer was not entitled to charge them certain adjustment amounts on closing under their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the developer was not entitled to pass on utility infrastructure costs paid to contractors, trades, and other third parties, but only those paid to the municipality or utility service providers, and for meter installation.

The court also found the developer was not entitled to charge $800 for an extension of the closing date.

The application was granted, and a reference on damages was directed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal and a motion for contempt against Susan Stevens for breaching court orders related to the disposition of a recreational vehicle (RV) subject to a Mareva injunction.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of them, and that she intentionally breached them by selling the RV.

The court found Ms. Stevens in contempt, ordered her to provide documentation and pay over the proceeds, and adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt.

The decision addresses motions by First Trust Management AG, as Trustee of The Salus Rete Trust, to stay or dismiss two related actions on the basis that Ontario lacks jurisdiction or is not a convenient forum.

The court finds that the claims are adequately pleaded, that Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter based on several presumptive connecting factors (including contracts made in Ontario and torts committed in Ontario), and that Ontario is the most appropriate and convenient forum for the actions.

The motions are dismissed.

The defendant trustee of a Liechtenstein trust moved to stay or dismiss two related Ontario actions alleging fraud and misappropriation of funds, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was an inconvenient forum.

The plaintiffs resisted the motions, asserting that the funds used to settle the trust originated from Ontario and were transferred in breach of fiduciary duties.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because contracts connected to the dispute were executed in Ontario and the underlying torts of misappropriation occurred within the province.

The court also declined to stay the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens, concluding that Ontario was the most appropriate and efficient forum to resolve the claims.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash a motion for leave to appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The Superior Court had dismissed an application to review an arbitrator's jurisdiction decision, finding the responding parties had waived their right to object.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the application judge's order, citing s. 17(9) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, which explicitly states there is no appeal from a court's decision on a preliminary question of an arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The court found the arbitrator's jurisdiction ruling was indeed a preliminary question, despite its timing.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was quashed, and costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The defendant, Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by 863880 Ontario Limited (863) as statute-barred.

The action sought damages for TCE contamination on a property purchased by 863 from CPR's predecessors.

CPR argued 863 had sufficient knowledge of the contamination by April 1991, triggering the six-year limitation period. 863 contended it only gained full knowledge in 1998.

The court found that 863 had actual knowledge of the contamination in April 1991, sufficient to trigger the limitation period, as perfect or complete knowledge of the extent or source of damage is not required.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and 863's action against CPR was dismissed.

This appeal concerned the determination of assets in a deceased's estate.

The Court of Appeal set aside the motion judge's order, finding several errors.

The motion judge erred by relying on trust principles without a determined estate representative, misapplying the "one economic unit" concept to presume equal sharing, making flawed credibility findings based on an uncross-examined witness, and making conflicting factual findings.

The appellate court emphasized that complex factual and credibility issues, especially with voluminous records, require oral evidence and that pending applications should be consolidated and heard together after the determination of a valid will or intestacy.

The applicants sought a determination that the arbitrator erred in finding jurisdiction over certain relief claimed by the respondents in an ongoing arbitration.

The court found that the applicants had waived their right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction through their conduct, including filing a counterclaim and issuing their own notice of demand for arbitration invoking the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing that allowing a last-minute jurisdictional challenge after significant participation would undermine the efficiency and benefits of arbitration.

This is a costs endorsement following motions by three groups of defendants to strike the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim.

The court had previously substantially granted the motion by the 1Plus12 Corporation defendants, dismissed the motions by the Ricci and Karp defendants to strike the statement of claim against them, and struck the plaintiff's affidavit.

This endorsement determines the costs payable between the parties.

The 1Plus12 defendants were awarded $17,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, as they were substantially successful.

The Ricci defendants were awarded $9,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, despite their motion to stay being dismissed, due to the necessity of responding to allegations of criminal conduct that were struck.

No costs were awarded to or against the Karp defendants, as their motion to strike the claim against them was dismissed, although they succeeded in striking the plaintiff's affidavit.

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.