Marie-Andrée Vermette

The plaintiff, the former President of a family-run painting corporation, brought an action for oppression and wrongful dismissal after being terminated and removed as a director.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging the plaintiff misappropriated corporate funds, redirected rebates, and performed cash jobs for personal benefit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding his termination was justified for cause due to his dishonest conduct.

The court granted the counterclaim in part, ordering the plaintiff to pay $470,000 for redirected rebates and cash jobs, refund unauthorized transfers, disgorge profits, and pay $75,000 in punitive damages for reprehensible self-dealing.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following a successful application by Costco Wholesale Corporation to enforce arbitral awards and a U.S. judgment on costs against TicketOps Corporation.

Costco sought $65,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while TicketOps proposed $50,000 plus HST.

The court, considering factors under Rule 57.01, found that while the time spent by Costco's counsel was not disputed, the hourly rates of some junior lawyers were higher than reasonably expected.

The court awarded Costco $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis, deeming it a fair and reasonable amount within the parties' reasonable expectations.

The Applicant sought to quash a City of Toronto by-law (By-law 1515-2019, section 1(A)) that limited the issuance of new payday loan establishment licenses to renewals only, arguing it was ultra vires the City of Toronto Act, 2006, discriminatory, and in conflict with federal and provincial legislation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the by-law to be a valid exercise of the City's broad authority for consumer protection, not discriminatory in the municipal law sense, and not in conflict with higher legislation, as it did not prohibit all payday loan operations nor frustrate the purpose of the relevant Acts.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision (2023 ONSC 1073) which dismissed an application and an action against the Attorney General of Canada, and struck out a statement of claim against the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) with leave to amend.

The plaintiff and Attorney General of Canada settled costs.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought partial indemnity costs of $2,127.50 from the self-represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to provide responding costs submissions despite multiple opportunities.

The court found the AGO was largely successful and justified in bringing the motion to strike.

The court awarded the AGO $2,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiff to the Minister of Finance for Ontario within 30 days.

The applicants, seven young Ontarians, brought an application challenging Ontario's greenhouse gas reduction target (the "Target") set under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018.

They argued that the Target, which aims to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, is unconstitutional and violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The court found that the issues were justiciable, as they involved a challenge to specific state action and legislation.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that while climate change poses a severe threat and disproportionately impacts youth, the Target itself does not violate the Charter.

The court held that section 7 does not impose positive obligations on the state to enact more stringent environmental policies, and the Target is not arbitrary or grossly disproportionate.

Furthermore, the court found no section 15 violation, as the disproportionate impacts are caused by climate change itself, not the impugned legislation, and the Charter does not impose a positive obligation to remedy social inequalities.

This endorsement addresses costs following a guardianship application where the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) was appointed as guardian for Phary Saing.

The applicant, Konthear Saing, sought substantial indemnity costs against Sokly Saing and a non-party, Vothy Saing.

Sokly Saing and Phary Saing also sought costs.

The court found Phary Saing's offer to settle invalid due to the PGT's non-consent.

It declined to award costs against non-party Vothy Saing due to lack of notice and failure to meet the legal test.

The court ordered Sokly Saing to pay Konthear Saing $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, citing Sokly Saing's more significant conflict of interest and problematic conduct.

Konthear Saing and Sokly Saing were also ordered to each pay $282.50 to the PGT for its fees.

The costs of a prior capacity assessment motion were reserved to the judge hearing the balance of the main application.

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 applicant, Daniel Goguen, initiated an action against the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and other defendants, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

The LTB requested dismissal of the action against it under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it cannot be sued and the action is an indirect challenge to an LTB order.

The court found the applicant's statement of claim largely incomprehensible and without a valid cause of action against the LTB, confirming that the LTB is not a suable entity in a civil action.

The court dismissed the action against the LTB as frivolous and abusive.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's breach of contract claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended the action was not statute-barred due to a continuing breach or anticipatory breach.

The court found no continuing or anticipatory breach, concluding that the plaintiff had discovered her claim by July 8, 2018, at the latest.

As the action was commenced on August 11, 2021, it was out of time.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and both the plaintiff's action and the defendant's counterclaim were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the Estate of Paramjit Sahanan.

The court applied the factors from *Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen*, finding that while the defendants' excuse for default was not plausible, they acted promptly upon learning of the judgment and presented an arguable defence on the merits, particularly regarding the limitation period and the nature of the alleged debt.

The court also noted the plaintiff's long period of inaction.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

Three franchisees (Versatile, Everest, and Premium Host) sought to rescind their franchise agreements with Paramount Fine Foods under the Arthur Wishart Act, alleging the franchisor failed to provide compliant disclosure documents.

The court found that Paramount was not exempt from its disclosure obligations.

However, Versatile and Everest failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disclosure documents they received were fatally flawed, so their rescission claims were dismissed.

Premium Host successfully established that Paramount failed to disclose material financial information in a single document, rendering its disclosure fatally flawed.

Premium Host's rescission was deemed valid, and it was awarded statutory compensation against the franchisor and its associates, including Paramount Leasing and the Manager of Franchising.

The plaintiff, Donald Jameson Whitehead, initiated an action and an application against the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) and the Attorney General of Canada (AGC), seeking substantial damages for alleged infringements of rights during his detention and treatment.

The AGO moved to dismiss the action and application, and the AGC moved to consolidate and strike the pleadings.

The court dismissed the application as an abuse of process due to duplication.

It dismissed the action against the AGC, finding no reasonable cause of action.

For the AGO, the court struck out claims related to municipal police, correctional facilities, tribunals, and healthcare institutions without leave to amend, as the AGO is not vicariously liable for these entities.

Claims against Crown prosecutors were also struck for insufficient pleading of malicious prosecution or wrongful non-disclosure, but with leave to amend to provide necessary particulars.

The entire Statement of Claim was struck with leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim within 45 days, specifically for claims against Crown prosecutors.

Following a successful application ordering the respondents to hold an annual general meeting for the election of directors, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for elevated costs, finding the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible or outrageous behaviour.

The court awarded costs to the applicants on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $58,000, payable by all respondents except one who did not oppose the application.

The defendants appealed an Associate Judge's order regarding discovery issues and a subsequent costs decision.

The underlying motion dealt with time limits for further examinations for discovery, refusals, and undertakings in an action involving allegations of malicious prosecution and bad faith.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's application of Rule 31.05.1 to extend discovery time limits or in ordering the defendants to reattend at their own expense due to improper refusals.

Leave to appeal the $100,000 partial indemnity costs award was also denied, as the defendants failed to demonstrate an error in principle or that the costs decision was plainly wrong.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under subsection 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action.

The court found that the defendant's expression, a Facebook post concerning the management of charitable funds for a dam project in Pakistan, related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiffs' defamation claim was found to have substantial merit, they failed to demonstrate that the harm suffered was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court noted the plaintiffs provided no evidence of harm beyond legal presumption and failed to establish a causal link between the defendant's short-lived post and any significant harm, especially given other active defamatory posts.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

Costco brought an application to enforce an international arbitral award and a U.S. District Court judgment against TicketOps for failing to remit funds owed to suppliers.

TicketOps opposed the application and brought a motion to convert it into an action, arguing a denial of natural justice and public policy concerns, including an allegation of bias because the arbitrator was Facebook friends with Costco's U.S. counsel.

The court dismissed TicketOps' motion and granted the application, finding no valid grounds under the Model Law to refuse recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards.

This endorsement concerns the determination of costs following the dismissal of a motion brought by the Defendant, Sergio Grillone, on November 4, 2022.

The Plaintiff, Settlement Lenders Inc., sought partial indemnity costs.

The Defendant failed to provide responding costs submissions despite multiple opportunities.

The court reviewed the Plaintiff's submissions, considering factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and found the requested rates and time spent generally reasonable, with a small reduction for potential duplication.

The court awarded the Plaintiff $10,500.00 in partial indemnity costs, payable by Mr. Grillone within 30 days.

The plaintiff slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store, suffering a knee dislocation.

She was taken to the hospital where she was treated by an emergency room physician and an orthopaedic surgeon.

Due to a delay in diagnosing and treating compartment syndrome and a vascular injury, the plaintiff's leg had to be amputated.

The court found that both physicians breached the standard of care by failing to conduct adequate examinations and communicate effectively, and that these breaches caused the plaintiff's injury.

The action against Wal-Mart was dismissed as any assumed breach of the standard of care did not cause the injury.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the plaintiff, Adam Rowe, successfully opposed the defendant JD Design & Build Inc.'s attempt to challenge an Associate Justice's report.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis, or alternatively, substantial indemnity based on a Rule 49 offer.

The court rejected full indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendant, but awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, totaling $14,500.00.

The court emphasized that the defendant's ability to pay was irrelevant given the application of Rule 49.10.

The applicant moved to be appointed as litigation guardian and guardian of property for her sister, the respondent, in the context of an underlying application regarding the ownership of a shared property.

The respondent was assessed by a designated capacity assessor and found incapable of managing property and highly susceptible to undue influence.

The court found that the respondent required a litigation guardian and a guardian of property.

Due to severe family acrimony and conflicts of interest among the siblings regarding the property dispute, the court declined to appoint any family member.

Instead, the court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as both litigation guardian and guardian of property.