Martin Mendelzon

The plaintiff, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., sought summary judgment for specific performance of options to purchase real property.

The defendant, KKP Investments Inc., brought a cross-motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process and for payment of rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings with a related "Main Action" and because it was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was also dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff's new action was a matter of form over substance given prior settlement attempts.

The defendant's request for interim rent was withdrawn.

Both actions were ordered to be tried together.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of an IIROC hearing panel's decisions on merits and sanctions.

The IIROC panel had found that the applicant engaged in personal financial dealings with a client and made false and misleading representations to his firm, resulting in a two-year suspension, fines, and disgorgement.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that while the IIROC panel erred in its analysis of the transition rules regarding a repealed rule, the rule remained applicable to the applicant's conduct.

The Commission found no other errors of law or incorrect principles in the IIROC panel's findings of fact, its conclusion that the applicant's statements were false and misleading, or its sanctions order.

The plaintiffs, former employees and shareholders, brought a motion for refusals and undertakings and leave to amend their Statement of Claim in an oppression action.

The defendants opposed the disclosure of documents related to company valuation post-commencement of the action, arguing the valuation date should be the action's start.

The court granted leave to amend and ruled that post-commencement valuation documents were relevant, citing judicial discretion in selecting the fairest valuation date in oppression cases.

The court also addressed procedural issues regarding questions arising from undertakings, prioritizing efficiency under Rule 1.04.

The applicants, former owners of CryptoGlobal, sought the appointment of an independent inspector to investigate HyperBlock Inc. following an amalgamation.

They alleged oppressive conduct, conflict of interest by HyperBlock's CEO (Sean Walsh) in the acquisition of Project Spokane assets, overvaluation, and a significant post-closing decline in HyperBlock's value not fully explained by market forces.

The court found a prima facie case of oppression and an "index of suspicion" warranting an investigation, citing issues like cash flow irregularities, resignations of financial officers, lack of transparency, and potential conflicts of interest among management and directors.

The court ordered the appointment of BDO Canada Limited as an inspector.

This costs endorsement addresses three motions within a consolidated proceeding.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Adair parties (defendants) against the Pichelli parties (plaintiffs) for their successful summary judgment motions, finding that the allegations of fraud and malfeasance were unsubstantiated.

For the summary judgment motion brought by the Vuletic defendants against the Pichelli parties, costs were reserved to the trial judge due to unresolved factual disputes, including an allegation of forgery.

Finally, for a motion to vary a previous decision regarding Ante Kegalj, the Pichelli parties were awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly reduced from their claim, due to the straightforward nature of the motion and issues with their bill of costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay an Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The action concerned a dispute over payment obligations under a Term Sheet governing an upstream oil and gas rights transaction in Iran.

The Term Sheet contained a clause providing that it would be governed by English law and that the parties agreed to attorn to the courts of England.

The motion judge had applied the strong cause test and stayed the action in favour of England.

The Court of Appeal found that the forum selection clause was not an exclusive jurisdiction clause and therefore the strong cause test did not apply.

Conducting a fresh forum non conveniens analysis, the court found that the respondents had not demonstrated that England was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside.

The plaintiffs, former owners of Vape Brands International Inc., sought a Mareva injunction and an injunction to restrain the spin-off of a marijuana-related business to Hystyle Brands Inc. They sued the defendants for breach of a share purchase agreement and oppression, alleging unpaid promissory notes.

The defendants counterclaimed for fraudulent inducement.

The court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief, finding that while the plaintiffs had a strong prima facie case, they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The court emphasized that the traditional criteria for interlocutory injunctions apply in oppression remedy cases, except in rare circumstances, and that the defendants also had a strong prima facie counterclaim.

This decision addresses a motion brought by the plaintiffs (Pichelli Parties and Caroti Parties) to amend previous summary judgment reasons and for the judge to recuse herself from re-hearing a specific summary judgment motion.

The original reasons had been released without oral submissions from the plaintiffs on the Kegalj summary judgment motion, which had been previously adjourned.

The court found it had jurisdiction to amend its decision before a formal order was entered, as the failure to hear oral submissions constituted a miscarriage of justice due to a violation of the *audi alteram partem* rule.

The court also determined that a different judge should hear the re-argued summary judgment motion due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, while the original judge would remain as the case management judge.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens due to a forum selection clause designating England.

The court found jurisdiction simpliciter in Ontario based on contract formation principles but ultimately granted a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens, giving effect to the forum selection clause.

A lawyer appealed a professional misconduct finding based on in-court incivility during a securities prosecution.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied and accepted the disciplinary framework, but found its application unreasonable on the record.

The Court concluded the allegations were made in good faith with sufficient factual foundation in context.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they had oppressed the respondent shareholder in a closely-held family corporation and ordering them to purchase her shares for $4.25 million.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by not directing a trial, by finding oppression despite the respondent's alleged misconduct in a related family dispute, and by improperly mixing and matching expert valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a trial was unnecessary under the Hryniak principles, that the alleged family misconduct was irrelevant to the corporate duties owed, and that the application judge properly chose between competing expert methodologies to determine fair value.

This is an appeal from a Master's order concerning two issues: security for costs and solicitor-client privilege over certain emails.

The security for costs issue was resolved by agreement during the appeal.

The primary issue remaining was whether emails sent by the plaintiff to his solicitor using a corporate email account were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that solicitor-client privilege, being a fundamental and substantive principle in Canadian law, was not waived despite the inadvertent disclosure of the emails.

The court distinguished solicitor-client privilege from general privacy expectations and rejected the application of American jurisprudence due to its narrower interpretation of privilege.

The moving party sought to lift a stay of proceedings previously granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Following the stay, the moving party's attempt to pursue a class action in the United States for pre-explosion misrepresentations was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the responding party conceded the claim was governed by Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal found these new developments constituted facts arising after the order that justified lifting the stay to avoid an injustice, allowing the moving party to proceed with the claim in Ontario.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario seeking $400 million in damages and served the defendants in Guatemala, a non-Hague Convention state, in accordance with Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants appealed the validation of service, arguing that Rule 17.05(2) must be interpreted in accordance with customary international law and comity, which would require service to comply with Guatemalan law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that service under Rule 17.05(2) does not violate Guatemalan sovereignty or international law, and that the rule provides a clear choice of service methods that rebuts any presumption of conformity with foreign law.

Following a remittal from the Divisional Court, the Ontario Securities Commission held a fresh hearing to determine the appropriate sanctions for Kevin Loman, who was previously found to have engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities.

The Commission considered Loman's role as a salesperson, his prior registration experience, and the harm caused to investors.

The Commission ordered 8-year market prohibitions, including bans on trading, acquiring securities, and acting as a director or officer, subject to a limited carve-out.

Loman was also ordered to pay a $60,000 administrative penalty.

The Divisional Court issued supplementary reasons to clarify its earlier decision partially allowing the appellant's appeal from an Ontario Securities Commission decision.

The original appellate decision set aside specific ten-year bans and an administrative penalty, remitting them for a fresh determination.

Upon request for clarification, the Court agreed with the parties that the remedy should apply to all ten-year bans imposed on the appellant.

The earlier decision was amended to set aside all such bans and remit them to the Commission.

Following an earlier decision requiring certain respondents to purchase the applicant’s shares in a corporation for $4.25 million, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was lower than the judgment amount and sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the extensive litigation history, overlapping issues involving two related corporate interests, and the respondents’ conduct that complicated document production and valuation.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors and recognizing the respondents’ obstructive conduct, the court fixed substantial indemnity costs for fees and taxes and allowed claimed disbursements and expert valuation expenses in full.

The applicant brought an oppression application against her father and brother, alleging they conducted the family business in an oppressive manner.

The applicant was secretly removed as a director of the corporation, denied financial information, and pressured to sell her shares at a dictated price.

The court found the respondents' conduct was abusive, coercive, and unfairly disregarded the applicant's reasonable expectations as a shareholder and director.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the applicant's shares at a fair value of $4.25 million, declining to apply a minority discount.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding him liable for unregistered and illegal trading of securities and imposing sanctions.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commission's findings on liability, concluding it was reasonable to find the appellant engaged in acts furthering trade and received commissions.

However, the court found the Commission erred in its sanctions analysis by misapprehending the timing of a previous ban imposed on the appellant in Alberta.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the trading bans and administrative penalty set aside and remitted to the Commission for a fresh determination.

The parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to questions refused during examinations for discovery in an action alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract against an investment advisor and his firm.

The Master ordered the defendants to answer questions regarding the advisor's qualifications and the firm's legal position on vicarious liability, but found questions about the advisor's personal finances and other clients irrelevant.

The Master ordered the plaintiffs to answer questions regarding the calculation of their claimed damages and the factual basis for their allegations regarding loan arrangements and unsuitable investments, rejecting the argument that these questions were improper requests for particulars.