Lucinda Bendu

In a costs endorsement following a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the court resolved remaining disputes over costs and pre-judgment interest on RSUs and stock options.

Applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 factors, the court found the plaintiff mostly successful and fixed partial indemnity costs at the full amount claimed.

On interest, the court declined to depart from the presumptive statutory scheme under sections 128 and 130 because no unusual or special circumstances were proven and no evidence established a higher investment return.

The court emphasized legislative objectives of certainty and consistency in prejudgment interest determinations.

This motion addresses the interim management of an incapable person's (Lionel Bascus) property and personal care, pending a full application challenging the validity of recently executed powers of attorney (POAs) and a property transfer.

The applicant, Mr. Bascus's daughter, sought directions for his care and production of records, alleging the respondent, Mr. Bascus's sister, was not acting in his best interests.

The court found the respondent was not adhering to statutory principles for substitute decision-makers, particularly regarding consultation and advocating for appropriate long-term care.

The court ordered directions for personal care, mandating consultation between the parties and access to medical information for the applicant.

It also ordered limited production of medical and solicitor records relevant to the POAs and property transfers, but denied access to financial and estate planning records.

The respondent's request to unfreeze bank accounts was denied as it was not brought by motion.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their breach of contract claim, which was dismissed under Rule 60.12(b) for their persistent failure to comply with interlocutory orders requiring them to permit the respondents to inspect disputed limestone.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellants' position, noting their history of non-compliance and attempts to avoid the inspection order.

The court upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the claim, finding it amply justified, and denied leave to introduce fresh evidence blaming former counsel, stating such complaints are for a negligence action.

The plaintiffs, two major banks, sued to recover funds wired to the defendant money services business as a result of a fraud perpetrated by third parties.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it received the funds without knowledge of the fraud and changed its position in good faith by arranging equivalent payments in Chinese yuan to a foreign account.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the defendant actually changed its position in good faith, given conflicting expert evidence on its anti-money laundering compliance and the lack of direct evidence regarding the foreign exchange transactions.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, seeking additional security for the discovery stage and for the period from discoveries to trial.

Previously, $45,000 in security had been ordered, with the court finding that 1636833 Ontario Inc. (833) had insufficient assets.

On this motion, the plaintiffs provided new, more comprehensive evidence of 833's financial condition, including significant bank balances, investment accounts, and revenue from an active business relationship.

The court found that 833 now demonstrated sufficient liquid and unencumbered assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award, dismissing the defendants' motions for further security for costs.

The decision reiterated the limits of speculative inquiries into a company's future financial prospects on such motions.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1).

The plaintiff conceded the initial onus but argued it had a good chance of success at trial regarding its claim for wrongful termination of a distributorship agreement.

The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated a good chance of success on the issues of payment terms and alleged breach of a mutual exclusivity provision.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.