Macdonald Richard Irwin Allen

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated February 4, 2026.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

Following a successful application regarding an international fraud scheme, the applicants sought costs against the respondents.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $185,000 against the corporate respondent, Iberbanco, due to its ongoing willful disregard for court orders, misrepresentations to the court, unfounded allegations against the applicants, and efforts to impede the investigation.

The court declined to order costs against the individual respondents personally, as no relief had been granted against them in the main application.

The proposed defendant brought a cross-motion to strike paragraphs from an affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of an unopposed motion to amend its statement of claim.

The moving party argued the paragraphs contained inadmissible hearsay and were scandalous and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the statements were not tendered for the truth of their contents but to explain when the plaintiff discovered its claim against the moving party for limitation purposes.

The court also noted that since the amendment motion was unopposed, leaving the affidavit intact would not prejudice the moving party.

The applicants sought compliance with several court orders requiring the respondent bank to produce disclosure, including bank statements in native format and compliance reports.

Following two case conferences, the court found that the respondent had failed to make adequate efforts to comply and offered shifting, implausible explanations for the missing documents.

The court directed the parties to schedule a contempt motion and awarded the applicants their costs of the case conferences in the amount of $11,375.15, noting the respondent's ongoing disregard for court orders.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding a failure to plead material facts for a reasonable cause of action and an insufficient evidentiary basis for common issues.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the claim lacked material facts to support a Canadian conspiracy and that there was no sufficient factual basis for the proposed common issues, particularly given the distinct Canadian and U.S. tuna markets.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the lower court's order effectively ended the proceeding.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents illegally distributed securities and breached a temporary cease trade order in relation to a hotel development project, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market bans against the respondents, with a limited carve-out allowing the individual respondent to remain a director and officer of his registered real estate brokerage.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to jointly and severally pay an administrative penalty of $600,000, disgorge $13.177 million and US$364,000, and pay $166,000 in costs.

The parties brought cross-motions concerning discovery issues, including compelling answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals, access to accounting software, and setting a timetable for subsequent steps.

The court ordered various questions to be answered and documents produced, emphasizing relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Access to the defendant's accounting software was granted to the plaintiff.

The court also set a timetable for further discovery and expert reports, reserving costs to the trial judge due to divided success.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking three orders: production from non-party Meta Platforms, Inc. under Rule 30.10, transfer of the action to Ottawa, and validation of service on defendants Roger Beit and Kris Singh.

The court dismissed the production motion as premature, noting that pleadings had not closed and discovery had not occurred.

The motion to transfer was dismissed because it was brought in the wrong jurisdiction (Toronto instead of Ottawa, as per practice direction).

The motion to validate service was granted for Roger Beit (unopposed) but dismissed for Kris Singh due to non-compliance with Rule 17.04(1) regarding service outside Ontario.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay Meta nominal costs.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and made false or misleading statements in connection with raising funds for a hotel redevelopment project.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the respondents distributed securities without a prospectus and breached a temporary cease trade order.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of unregistered trading, finding that the capital raising was ancillary to the underlying hotel business, and dismissed the allegations of false statements because no trading relationship existed.

The Tribunal also found the respondents engaged its public interest jurisdiction by failing to segregate funds and maintain accurate records.

Following a judgment for breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiff landlord sought prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of prime plus five percent, rejecting the tenant's argument that his self-represented status constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the landlord's offer to settle, as the trial judgment exceeded the offer.

Costs were fixed at $128,000, reduced from the claimed amount due to proportionality concerns.

The plaintiff landlord sued the tenant for breach of a commercial lease after the tenant abandoned the premises.

The tenant alleged fundamental breach and breach of quiet enjoyment due to various issues including insect infestation, mold, roof leaks, HVAC problems, elevator breakdowns, and safety concerns.

The court found that the tenant failed to establish a fundamental breach or breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, noting inconsistent evidence, lack of proper notice to the landlord, and the landlord's reasonable efforts to address reported issues.

The court also found that the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

The landlord's claim for rental arrears and future rent was granted, while the tenant's claims for set-off and rent abatement were dismissed.

The moving party, Novus, sought an urgent stay pending an application for leave to appeal an interim injunction order that required it to shut down its call-centre business and transfer it to the respondent, WorldCare.

The underlying dispute involved a contract for call-centre services where WorldCare attempted to drastically reduce the price paid to Novus, leading to alleged termination and disputes over the handling of confidential health information.

The court found there were serious issues for leave to appeal, including conflicting decisions on arbitration statutes and the standard for irreparable harm.

Concluding that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo to prevent the destruction of Novus's business line, the court granted a brief stay until the Divisional Court could determine the leave to appeal application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claim against a university and a department chair.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, which it determined was the date the applicant was asked to withdraw for academic reasons.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application as untimely was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a transitioned female cyclist, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the imposition of anti-doping requirements as a condition of obtaining a race license.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction, timeliness, and whether to add WADA as a respondent.

The Tribunal found it had territorial jurisdiction over the UCI, as it extensively regulates the licensing process in Ontario, but not over the IOC or WADA.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's claims regarding the denial of her race licenses in 2013, 2014, and 2015 were timely as a continuing contravention, but claims regarding the Stockholm Consensus were out of time.

The request to summarily dismiss the application for lacking a reasonable prospect of success was denied.