Lindsay M. Moffatt

The moving parties sought to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by three brothers to separate their financial interests in a family excavation and construction business.

One brother opposed the motion, arguing the agreement was merely an 'agreement to agree' and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement on all essential terms, evidenced by the clear language of the agreement, their subsequent conduct, and partial performance.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to refuse enforcement, noting the strong public policy favouring settlements and the lack of any unconscionability or prejudice.

The motion was granted, and the settlement was ordered to be implemented with the assistance of an associate judge if necessary.

The plaintiff, Ian McLarty, was successful in his action for payment and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

This endorsement addresses the costs of the proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiff's offer to settle, though not strictly compliant with Rule 49.10, triggered substantial indemnity costs from June 18, 2018, onwards, and partial indemnity costs prior to that date, under the residual discretion of Rule 49.13.

The court assessed the reasonableness of the claimed costs, considering factors such as the exaggerated initial lien claim, the complexity of the case (simple breach of contract), the necessity of junior counsel, and the defendant's conduct (false affidavit, failure to answer undertakings).

The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff $45,000 in fees, $5,850 in HST, and $7,351.48 in disbursements, totaling $58,201.48.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, sought payment for construction work performed for the defendant, Great Lakes Food Company, based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages due to delay and deficiencies.

The court found that delays were primarily due to the defendant's poor planning and CFIA licensing issues, not the plaintiff.

The court allowed the plaintiff's claim for extras at a reasonable "shop rate" but disallowed overtime and reduced the trailer damage claim.

The defendant's claims for deficiencies in Room D were dismissed, but a credit was allowed for drain covers in Room H. The defendant's counterclaim for damages under the Construction Lien Act for an exaggerated lien was dismissed due to lack of proven damages.

The court found the defendant wrongfully terminated the contract.

Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for $87,244 plus interest.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them jointly and severally liable for breach of contract for non-payment of a real estate commission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a binding contract for commission was formed, that the action was not barred by the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, and that the corporate and individual appellants were jointly and severally liable as parties to the contract.

The defendant, Ikaria, brought a motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff agreed to post security, leaving only the quantum in dispute.

The defendant sought $244,636.81 up to mediation, while the plaintiff proposed $40,000.

The court found the defendant's estimate unreasonable and disproportionate, particularly regarding past motions, expert fees, and discovery attendance.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the all-inclusive amount of $100,000, payable in three tranches.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

This case involved a real estate commission dispute where the plaintiffs, Hurst Real Estate Service Inc. and DTZ Canada Inc., sought a 5% commission on the sale of a commercial property.

The court found that a binding contract was formed between the real estate agent, David Hurst, and the defendant Sam Sadr/Great Lands Corporation, entitling the plaintiffs to the commission.

The defendants' technical defenses, including the absence of a signed commission agreement and arguments under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, were rejected.

The court also found Sam Sadr personally liable for inducing the breach of contract and for being a party to the agreement.

The appellant, a minority shareholder in a family holding company, appealed the dismissal of her application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

She sought a court-ordered sale of her shares to her brothers after they rejected her offer to sell and she was unable to find a third-party purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of liquidity for her shares and that her interests as a shareholder were not unfairly disregarded.

The plaintiff software provider sued the defendant investment management firm for unpaid invoices under an Investment Administration Services Agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could charge additional fees based on the Assets Under Administration (AUA) of all the defendant's funds, or only the specific fund for which the software was initially used.

The court applied principles of commercial contractual interpretation and found the plain language of the Agreement allowed fees based on total AUA.

The plaintiff was awarded $16,242.19 for AUA fees.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for concurrent user fees and post-termination service charges, finding the contract ambiguous on concurrent users and noting the plaintiff breached its own post-termination obligations.

The defendant's counterclaim for wrongful termination was dismissed because the termination was lawful given the unpaid AUA fees.

The court determined costs for consolidated matrimonial and civil proceedings.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick sought full indemnity costs from Brian Earl Blatherwick and joint and several costs from Seasons (H.K.) Limited.

The court found Brian Earl Blatherwick acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, engaged in deliberate non-disclosure, and complicated the proceedings, warranting full indemnity costs.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick was awarded $1,401,031.31 against him.

Seasons (H.K.) Limited was also found to have acted in bad faith and engaged in reprehensible conduct by presenting false documents and evasive evidence, leading to an award of full indemnity costs of $147,877.41 against it.

This amount was included in the award against Brian Earl Blatherwick and made joint and several to that extent only.

The court rejected a broader joint and several liability for Seasons (H.K.) due to lack of notice and policy concerns regarding consolidation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' oppression action in a family-owned business shareholder dispute, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $333,872.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' counsel spent excessive hours and suggested a costs award of $267,098.

The court found the defendants' costs were high but acknowledged the significant resources required to defend the litigation.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $275,000 and declined the defendants' request to deduct the award from the plaintiffs' future dividend payments.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder in a closely held family business, sought an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, requesting a court-ordered sale of her shares to her brothers and the corporate entity.

She argued that the defendants' refusal to purchase her shares, coupled with a lack of a third-party market and irreconcilable differences, constituted oppressive conduct, and also challenged the corporation's dividend policy.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff did not have a reasonable expectation of liquidity for her shares, as the shareholders' agreement did not mandate a buyout and her minority interest inherently had limited liquidity.

The court also found no unfairness in the dividend policy, noting the brothers' active roles and separate shareholdings.

The oppression remedy was not designed to provide an exit strategy for a minority shareholder in the absence of actual oppressive or unfair conduct.