Matthew Karabus

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the February 12, 2021 decision of McEwen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the January 11, 2021 decision of Boswell J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 5.04(2) to amend the title of proceedings to correct an alleged misnomer, seeking to substitute 'Downtown Auto Collision Centre Inc.' for the named plaintiff 'Dealer’s Choice Preferred Collision Centre Inc.'.

The action alleged breach of a 2013 agreement.

The court found that the defendants had specifically rejected the inclusion of Downtown Auto as a party to the agreement during negotiations.

Applying the 'litigating finger' test, the court concluded the defendants would have had no reason to think the intended plaintiff was Downtown Auto.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The applicants, owners of cottage properties in Tiny Township, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent municipality from interfering with their use of a grassy area between their properties and the beach.

The applicants claimed exclusive possession of the grassy area for decades, while the municipality claimed ownership based on a 1931 dedication.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding ownership, that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm through loss of enjoyment and potential environmental impact, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that had been registered against a commercial property.

The CPL was originally granted ex parte to Olympia Trust Company, but was never registered.

Instead, a new entity, Bald Eagle Inc., which was never formally added as a plaintiff, obtained and registered a CPL.

Relying on a recent related decision confirming the validity of the underlying mortgage sale, and noting the procedural irregularities in obtaining the CPL, the Master granted the motion and ordered the CPL vacated forthwith.

The applicant held a third mortgage on a property and challenged the sale of the property by the assignee of the first mortgage, arguing the assignee failed to issue a fresh notice of sale.

The applicant moved to convert the application into an action to add allegations of fraud, while the respondents moved to dismiss the application.

The court granted the motion to convert the application into an action, finding the record insufficient to deny the investors the ability to pursue their claims.

However, the court ruled on the legal issue, holding that under the Mortgages Act, an assignee is not required to issue a fresh notice of sale if the interested parties received written notice of the assignment.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. attempted to acquire VimpelCom Ltd.'s interest in Wind Mobile Corp. but negotiations failed.

During negotiations, a junior analyst employed by Catalyst left to work for West Face Capital Inc., a member of a consortium that subsequently acquired Wind.

Catalyst sued the former employee and West Face for breach of confidence and other claims (the Moyse Action).

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that no confidential information was communicated and that Catalyst suffered no detriment because its own refusal to agree to a break fee and its insistence on regulatory concessions made the deal impossible.

Catalyst then commenced a second action against the consortium members and others alleging breach of confidence, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as barred by issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Catalyst was attempting to relitigate factual findings from the first action and that it could have advanced all claims in the first proceeding.

The appellant hotel owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent hotel manager an early termination fee of $1,026,652.44 plus costs.

The owner had terminated a 10-year hotel management agreement after approximately 10 months, claiming cause based on alleged breaches by the manager.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The court rejected the owner's arguments regarding alleged breaches concerning an interim manager's work visa status, the appointment of an unqualified general manager, the manager's failure to timely terminate the general manager, and alleged budget preparation violations.

The court found that the owner had approved the general manager's hiring, that the manager had cured the termination issue within the required 30-day period, and that the owner could not rely on its own refusal to approve the annual plan as grounds for termination for cause.

The applicants commenced an action against the Ontario Hockey Association and related entities and individuals.

After the respondents requested an extension to file a defence and the applicants confirmed they would not note them in default, the respondents were nonetheless noted in default one day after the deadline.

The respondents successfully moved to set aside the noting in default, and the motion judge ordered the applicants to amend their statement of claim within seven weeks.

The applicants failed to comply with this order.

The respondents subsequently moved to dismiss the claim for breach of the order, and the applicants did not attend the hearing.

The motion judge dismissed the claim with prejudice and ordered costs of $83,937.82.

The applicants later sought an extension of time to appeal, which was dismissed by the chambers judge.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding no legal error and concluding that the applicants had deliberately breached court orders and lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period.

The applicant sought production of documents relating to a corporate acquisition that occurred three and a half years after the valuation date of his shares, arguing it was relevant to the valuation.

The respondents moved to strike the application.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for production, holding that the mutually appointed valuator had the exclusive authority under the settlement agreement to determine the relevance of the post-valuation transaction.

The court struck the application against the third-party purchasers, finding they were improperly joined solely for discovery purposes, but declined to strike the breach of contract claim against the former employer, adjourning it pending the valuator's determination.

Various defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged civil conspiracy, defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment.

The court struck the claims for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment against all applicants.

The civil conspiracy claim against one individual defendant (Moez Kassam) was struck, but the conspiracy claims against the remaining Anson Corporate Defendants, Adam Spears, Sunny Puri, ClaritySpring Inc., Nathan Anderson, Richard Molyneux, and Darryl Levitt were allowed to proceed.

The court also clarified that 'whistleblower' complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission are subject to absolute privilege and do not constitute the commencement of legal proceedings for the tort of abuse of process.

The appellants appealed a Master's order that varied a previous 'last chance' order requiring the respondent to post security for costs.

The previous order stated that if the respondent failed to post security by a specific deadline, the action would be dismissed.

The respondent failed to comply, but the Master subsequently issued a new order extending the deadline and increasing the security amount.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master was functus officio once the original order was issued, entered, and breached, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The Master therefore had no jurisdiction to vary the order or grant a stay.

The appellant, a 50% shareholder in a corporation, brought an oppression application against his brother, the other 50% shareholder, regarding the sale and lease-back of the corporation's real estate.

The appellant appealed two motion decisions: one dismissing his claim for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and another denying an injunction to halt the sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the shareholder dispute did not give rise to an interest in land to support a CPL, and that the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in applying the RJR-MacDonald test to deny the injunction.

The court noted the purchaser could rely on the indoor management rule and the appellant's claim was readily quantifiable in damages.

The applicant and respondent are brothers and shareholders in a corporation that owns a commercial property.

The respondent accepted an offer to sell the property on behalf of the corporation.

The applicant brought an oppression remedy application, alleging he was improperly excluded from management, and sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the property to prevent the sale.

The court dismissed the motion for a CPL, holding that a shareholder does not have a direct interest in the lands owned by the corporation, which is a requirement for a CPL under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court noted the appropriate remedy would be an injunction.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a US$90 million settlement of a class action against the defendant auditors for alleged negligence and misrepresentation in auditing a company's financial statements.

The court considered the significant litigation risks, the defences advanced, and the depletion of the defendants' insurance coverage.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlement.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee request of approximately $21.9 million, noting the substantial risk undertaken and the successful result achieved after 17 years of litigation.

The City of Toronto moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by the plaintiffs for injuries sustained by Selome Aemoro Walelegne after tripping on a sidewalk discontinuity.

The court applied the Hyrniak v. Mauldin framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The City met its minimum maintenance standards for patrolling and inspecting sidewalks under O. Reg. 612/06 and was protected by the statutory defences in the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it took reasonable steps and could not reasonably have known about the specific defect.

Furthermore, the plaintiff was found to have contributed to her own injury by walking off the intended path.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action dismissed.

On a motion in a family property dispute, the moving plaintiff sought leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation over farm property allegedly transferred through a quitclaim deed for inadequate consideration and in breach of fiduciary obligations.

The court found there were numerous triable issues concerning the plaintiffs' claimed interest in the land, the surrounding transfers, mortgages, and the role of family members and their solicitor.

Although there had been delay and material non-disclosure in earlier proceedings, the court held that a CPL was still appropriate in light of the unresolved issues and the threatened sale.

To balance the pending arm's-length sale, the court ordered that the CPL could be vacated if $1,500,000 was paid into court on closing.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

The plaintiffs, two sisters, sued their third sister and her family members over the transfer of a family farm property.

The plaintiffs alleged that the property was transferred for less than its true value and that the defendant sister breached her fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff Liliana brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after discovering a new $2,000,000 mortgage on the property and a pending agreement of purchase and sale for $6.9 million.

The court granted the CPL but ordered that it could be vacated upon payment of $1,500,000 into court if the pending sale closes, balancing the plaintiffs' claims with the defendants' right to complete the transaction.