Lucas E. Lung

The appellants challenged summary judgment enforcing a $2.1 million promissory note, arguing procedural unfairness, evidentiary error, and lack of consideration.

The court rejected all grounds and upheld enforceability against both appellants.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the corporate responding party and $5,000 to the individual responding parties.

The applicants, parents elected to a school council, brought an application for judicial review after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) disbanded the council and ordered a new election due to a procedural irregularity.

The Divisional Court held that the TDSB lacked the statutory authority under the Education Act and O. Reg. 612/00 to disband a school council or review its elections.

The court granted a declaration that the TDSB's decision was made without jurisdiction, but declined to grant further remedies as the school year had already ended.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge dated March 7 and April 8, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

The moving parties were ordered to pay all-inclusive costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud, unregistered trading, and illegal distribution, and imposing sanctions including a joint and several disgorgement order of approximately $8.7 million.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the Commission refused to adjourn the merits hearing and restricted cross-examination, and that the joint and several disgorgement order was demonstrably unfit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the adjournment refusal or hearing conduct, and holding that the Commission's broad public interest discretion under the Securities Act permitted joint and several disgorgement orders.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a motion for injunctive relief brought by Mondee, Inc. and related plaintiffs against Voyzant Inc. and several individual defendants.

The court granted limited injunctive relief to Mondee, primarily the return and destruction of its information, but dismissed broader relief sought against the defendants.

The court found that the defendants were more successful on the substantive issues and awarded costs to Voyzant Inc. and the non-Binning departing employees, while denying costs to Jasvinder Binning due to his conduct.

The court declined to award Mondee its costs, holding that costs should generally be reserved to the trial judge where a trial is likely.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The third parties, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Corey Poechman, moved to strike a third-party claim brought against them by the Arbour defendants.

The Arbour defendants sought contribution and indemnity from the third parties for any liability they might face in the main fraud action.

The court found that the third-party claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because it did not allege that the third parties owed any duty to the plaintiffs, which is a requirement for a contribution claim.

Consequently, the court struck the third-party claim but granted the Arbour defendants leave to amend their pleadings.

The plaintiff, Jaymat Limited, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Vivo Pizza Pasta Franchising Inc. and Pino Trichilo, for repayment of advances made in respect of several restaurant locations.

The court found that the advances, initially ambiguous as to whether they were loans or equity, were ultimately confirmed as loans by a promissory note signed in October 2021.

The court held that both defendants received consideration for signing the note, and that the note was enforceable.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $2,100,000 plus interest, with leave to amend the corporate defendant’s name.

This appeal concerned the denial of Indian status to Sharon Bocchini and her late mother, Bertha Isbister, descendants of St. Pierre Cook.

The Indian Registrar denied status based on Mr. Cook's historical receipt of "half-breed scrip" and withdrawal from treaty in the 1880s.

The court found that the Registrar erred in law by applying the wrong version of the Indian Act (1888 instead of 1886) to determine Mr. Cook's lawful withdrawal from treaty.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors of fact in the Registrar's conclusion that Mr. Cook lawfully received scrip, noting he was a minor (17 years old) at the time of application and sale, and that the Registrar failed to adequately consider evidence of widespread scrip fraud affecting the Sandy Bay Band.

The appeal was allowed, and the removal of Sharon Bocchini and Bertha Isbister from the Indian Register was reversed, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The plaintiffs, survivors and close family members of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, sought to recognize and enforce a US default judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The court granted the motion for default judgment, finding that the US court properly exercised jurisdiction, the judgment was final and conclusive, and no defences of fraud, public policy, or lack of natural justice were available.

The decision relied on the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) and the State Immunity Act (SIA), which provide exceptions to state immunity for terrorism-related acts, and ordered the defendants to pay the specified damages and costs.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion to approve the sale of a jointly owned property and for ancillary relief, including approval of fees and an interim distribution of proceeds.

The respondent opposed the sale, challenging the appraisals, the rejection of his own bid, and the receiver's fees.

Applying the Soundair test, the court found that the receiver made sufficient efforts to obtain the best price, considered the interests of all parties, and conducted a fair process with integrity.

The court approved the sale, the receiver's fees, and an interim distribution of the proceeds to the applicant to satisfy outstanding obligations under a prior divorce agreement.

The applicant sought the appointment of a receiver to sell an apartment building in Toronto and the recognition and enforcement of a New York Supreme Court order.

The parties, formerly married, had a divorce agreement requiring the applicant to receive US$500,000 for her interest in the property by June 2020, which the respondent had repeatedly frustrated.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver due to the respondent's deliberate obstruction, the parties' impasse, the impending mortgage maturity, and the property's negative cash flow.

The court also recognized and enforced the New York order for interest, rental revenues, and costs, finding the New York court had jurisdiction, the order was final, and no valid defenses were raised.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The defendant Eldon Lindbergh Hunt brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, a mortgagee, alleged Hunt, as lawyer for co-defendant Albert Paul Mifsud, improperly registered a caution against a property, preventing its sale and causing damages.

The court found the claim deficient on three grounds: the caution was registered after the alleged closing date, a lawyer acting qua solicitor is not liable under s.132 of the Land Titles Act, and the intentional interference with contractual relations tort was not properly pleaded.

The motion to strike the claims against Hunt was granted, but the plaintiff was given leave to amend the statement of claim to potentially plead a common law tort.

The Plaintiffs, Zenish Polyfilm LLP and Zenish Reclamation, moved for summary judgment against Alpha Marathon Film Extrusion Technologies Inc. for damages of US$693,750.00 due to breach of contract.

The court found that Alpha Marathon fundamentally breached the March 2018 contract by failing to deliver the agreed-upon system within a reasonable time and by failing to refund an excess payment.

The court rejected Alpha Marathon's arguments regarding credibility issues and contractual interpretation, finding that the documentary evidence was sufficient for adjudication.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and Alpha Marathon was ordered to pay the full amount plus prejudgment interest.

The parties, former spouses, owned an apartment building as joint tenants.

Their divorce agreement gave the appellant a right of first refusal to buy out the respondent's interest, contingent on securing financing and escrowing funds for tax liability.

The appellant failed to exercise this right within the 90-day deadline due to a disagreement over the tax calculation.

The respondent successfully applied for the sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the judge misapprehended the dispute as a partition matter rather than a contract dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law and confirming the appellant's right of first refusal had lapsed.

This application concerned an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, brought by a daughter (applicant) against her mother (respondent) and related corporations in a closely held family business.

The applicant alleged oppressive conduct by the respondent, specifically a debt conversion and share issue that diverted corporate revenues to the respondent and terminated the applicant's long-standing income stream.

The court applied the two-step test for oppression, finding that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of continued financial support and participation in the residual value of the corporation.

The court determined that the respondent's actions breached these reasonable expectations and constituted oppressive conduct.

Consequently, the debt conversion and share issue were set aside.

The court declined to remove the respondent as director but directed the parties to negotiate a fair resolution for ongoing payments based on their respective needs and available resources, with the option to return to court if an agreement could not be reached.