Manjit Singh

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $2,608,798 in damages and successfully defended a counterclaim, the court determined costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court rejected the defendants' request for a distributive costs analysis and the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' discovery breaches did not amount to reprehensible conduct.

Costs were fixed at $1,900,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court also calculated pre-judgment interest on the past pecuniary loss at the statutory rate of 2% applied in six-month intervals pursuant to s. 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, totaling $161,866.13.

The Plaintiff, Behold Control Equipment Inc., and Trevor Strauss (the 'Behold Parties') brought a pre-trial motion seeking a sealing order for 26 documents, comprising technical specifications and pricing/profitability analysis, intended to be tendered as evidence at trial.

They argued the documents contained confidential and commercially sensitive information, the public disclosure of which would harm their competitive ability.

The Defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court declined to grant the sealing order, finding that the Behold Parties had not provided sufficient fact-based evidence to satisfy the Sherman test for confidentiality, particularly regarding whether the information was truly confidential, not in the public domain, and whether reasonable alternatives existed.

The court emphasized that the determination of confidentiality and the necessity of a sealing order were central issues best decided at trial on a full evidentiary record, rather than on an interlocutory pre-trial motion.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its motion for a charging order under s. 34 of the Solicitors Act.

The motion judge had found that the property in question had already been preserved by a prior order and exercised discretion to refuse the charging order.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, concluding that the appellant had not successfully obtained any order recovering or preserving property, and the declaratory relief sought to that effect was refused.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a proposed $500,000 settlement of a securities class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by a cannabis company.

The court declined to approve the settlement, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove it was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court cited concerns over the gross disparity between the Canadian settlement and a $2.9 million USD settlement in a parallel US proceeding, the lack of evidence regarding estimated class size and recovery per member, and unexplained issues regarding insurance coverage.

The Debtors (Ten 4 System Ltd., 1000043321 Ontario Inc., and 1000122550 Ontario Inc.) sought leave to appeal an order appointing a receiver over their assets, pursuant to s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Royal Bank of Canada, the creditor, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal lacked prima facie merit, did not raise issues of general importance, and that granting leave would unduly hinder the receivership administration.

Costs were awarded to RBC.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion for leave to commence a class action under the Securities Act and for certification under the Class Proceedings Act for settlement purposes.

The action alleged misrepresentations in public statements by the defendants.

The parties reached a proposed settlement of $500,000.

The court granted leave and certified the class for settlement, finding all certification criteria met, albeit with less strict application for settlement purposes.

The court approved the representative plaintiff and the administrator but required revisions to the proposed class notices and further submissions regarding the notice dissemination plan to ensure clarity and proper information for class members.

A putative class action had settled, subject to court approval.

A proposed intervener sought a timetable to bring a motion to intervene and be appointed representative plaintiff.

The existing parties to the action sought a timetable for the certification and settlement approval motions, arguing that the intervention motion should not be scheduled unless settlement approval was denied.

The court determined that the certification and settlement approval motions should be heard first, and the intervention motion would only be scheduled if settlement approval was not granted.

The plaintiff, a minor student at a private school, sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the school to re-register him for the upcoming academic year.

The student's parents had failed to pay tuition arrears by the re-registration deadline, resulting in the school filling his spot.

After paying the arrears late, the parents argued the school breached its contract and an alleged oral agreement by refusing re-registration.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of breach of contract or that the student would suffer irreparable harm if forced to attend a different school pending trial.

The plaintiff in a putative class action for secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents referenced in the defendants' affidavits prior to serving his reply record.

Alternatively, the plaintiff sought to strike the portions of the affidavits referencing those documents.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the plaintiff has no right to documentary discovery at the leave stage under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, and that the proper mechanism for production is through cross-examination after the reply is served.

The court also declined to strike the affidavits, noting that hearsay is permitted on motions.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and for certification of a class action for settlement purposes.

The action alleged secondary market misrepresentations by the defendants regarding a pharmaceutical product.

The court found the criteria for leave to proceed and certification were met, approved the class definition and common issues for settlement purposes, and approved the proposed notices to class members.

This supplementary costs endorsement clarifies a previous Costs Order dated December 5, 2018.

The defendants requested clarification, while the plaintiffs argued the court was functus officio.

The court rejected the functus officio argument, affirming its jurisdiction to amend the order to correct an omission in expressing its manifest intention.

The clarification specifically addresses the apportionment of costs, confirming that one defendant is to pay 25% of the balance of the plaintiffs' costs, after a third party pays their 25%.

The applicant and respondent were equal shareholders in two corporations.

Following the sale of corporate assets, a dispute arose over the distribution of the remaining holdback funds.

The respondent sought to enforce an alleged 2016 agreement for compensation for past services, but acknowledged he had not commenced a formal claim within the two-year limitation period.

The court held that the respondent could not use his responding affidavit on the application to advance a claim that was statute-barred.

The court ordered the holdback funds to be divided without regard to the respondent's claim for compensation.

The plaintiff, an employee of Darwin Productions Inc., claimed unpaid salary and a percentage ownership interest based on an alleged employment agreement.

The respondents denied the terms and moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was statute-barred.

The motion judge granted the summary judgment, finding no evidence of a demand obligation and concluding the cause of action arose by December 2009.

The intervenor law firm appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by failing to address anticipatory breach of contract and by finding sufficient evidence to decide factual issues on summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by not addressing the anticipatory breach argument and that there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding the terms of the employment agreement.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought costs of the action on a substantial indemnity scale, citing the plaintiff's conduct and unaccepted settlement offers.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and the settlement offers did not warrant an elevated scale.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $40,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Augusta Tiberi, acting as Attorney for Property for her deceased father, Giustino Ricci, misappropriated estate funds, incurred debt for personal benefit, and improperly transferred the family home into joint tenancy and then solely into her name, subsequently mortgaging it for personal use.

Following Mr. Ricci's death, his other children initiated litigation to ensure proper estate administration.

The parties settled all substantive claims, leaving only the issue of costs.

The court found that Ms. Tiberi's counsel, Dorothy Hagel, pursued an untenable defense, misled the court, and facilitated her client's breaches of court orders, significantly increasing litigation costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, reduced for proportionality, and held Ms. Hagel jointly and severally liable for these costs, personally responsible for 25% due to her misconduct.

The plaintiff, Azim Rizvee, sought leave to discontinue his action for malicious prosecution against the defendant, Stacey Newman, after his defamation claim had previously been dismissed.

The defendant sought discontinuance with prejudice and an award of costs.

The court granted leave for the plaintiff to discontinue the action, ordering that the discontinuance would operate as a defence to any subsequent action.

The court also awarded costs of $12,500.00 to the defendant, finding her prior settlement offers to be fair.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for unpaid wages, equity interest, and intellectual property ownership, arguing the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff had discovered the material facts giving rise to his claims by December 2009 at the latest, well outside the two-year limitation period for the action commenced in January 2012.

The court rejected arguments that the unpaid wages constituted a "demand obligation" and that declaratory relief without consequential relief was exempt from limitation periods, as the plaintiff sought mandatory relief.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The applicant, a co-founder and equal shareholder of Boothworks Inc., was dismissed and removed as a director and officer by the other two co-founders.

The applicant sought a fair market value purchase of his shares, alleging oppression.

The respondents counter-applied, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and seeking damages for loss of a major client (Spin Master) that had a personal relationship with the applicant.

The court found that the respondents' actions constituted oppression, as they unfairly disregarded the applicant's reasonable expectations of equality in the company.

The court dismissed the counter-application, finding no breach of fiduciary duty by the applicant or other counter-respondents, as the client relationship was personal to the applicant and not an asset of Boothworks.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the applicant's shares at fair market value, with specific valuation guidelines.

The court reviewed lengthy costs submissions following an earlier endorsement that converted an application into an action, necessitating a trial due to serious allegations and contentious evidence.

The court determined that the costs of the two attendances before it ought to be reserved to the trial judge, as a proper adjudication of the merits and credibility assessment required a full trial.

The court converted an application into a trial due to serious allegations of misappropriation of estate funds and credibility issues that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence.

The respondent Estate Trustee was ordered to pay $400,000 into court and restricted from taking further steps as Estate Trustee without consent or court order, pending the trial.