Matthew P. Sammon

The plaintiff developer entered into agreements of purchase and sale with the defendant for commercial properties, which included a mutual lease condition for a leaseback arrangement.

As the condition deadline approached, the defendant assured the plaintiff it would continue negotiating the leases but secretly sought board approval to sell the properties to a third party.

The defendant then terminated the agreements.

The court found the defendant breached its duty of good faith and honest performance, and was liable for negligent misrepresentation.

Applying promissory estoppel, the court held the defendant could not rely on its strict contractual rights to terminate.

The plaintiff was awarded $15.5 million in damages for lost profits.

The plaintiff, a senior executive at RBC, was dismissed following an investigation into his financial dealings with a subordinate.

He sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming entitlement to 24 months' reasonable notice under Ontario common law.

RBC argued the employment contract was governed by UK law, which limited notice to 12 weeks, and alternatively pleaded after-acquired cause based on the plaintiff's dishonesty during the investigation.

The court held that UK law governed the contract and the plaintiff had received his contractual notice.

Furthermore, the court found that RBC had established after-acquired cause because the plaintiff deliberately withheld material information about his real estate investments with the subordinate during the investigation.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, save for unpaid vested compensation, and RBC's counterclaim for mistaken tax overpayments was allowed.

The plaintiff, a 54-year-old investment advisor with 24 years of service, was dismissed without cause.

During discovery, the defendant learned the plaintiff had copied confidential client emails to a personal USB key and alleged after-acquired cause.

The court found the misconduct was a lapse in judgment that did not warrant dismissal.

The court awarded a 24-month notice period and damages for lost commissions.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages for the lost opportunity to sell her book of business, finding she failed to prove she would have retired and sold it during the notice period, and dismissed her claim for bad faith damages.

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion during trial for leave to withdraw an admission of fact contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The admission was based on a handwritten note produced by the defendant.

Midway through the trial, the defendant produced new documentary evidence, including emails, that contradicted the handwritten note and the admission.

Applying the tripartite test under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the new evidence raised a triable issue, provided a reasonable explanation for the withdrawal, and would not result in non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their medical malpractice Statement of Claim to substitute Dr. Renato Natale for the pseudonym 'Dr. John/Jane Doe Gynecological Attending'.

The motion was brought after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The court applied the 'litigation finger' test and found that a person with knowledge of the facts would be aware of the true identity of the misnamed defendant from reading the pleading.

Finding no undue prejudice to the proposed defendant, the court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment.

The respondent brought a motion to remove the court-appointed liquidator of a real estate company, alleging a conflict of interest and collaboration with the applicant Estate.

The liquidator sought approval of its activities, fees, and an extension of a listing agreement for the sale of properties.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the liquidator, finding no evidence of bad faith or blatant intentional action contrary to the interests of the parties.

The court approved the liquidator's fees and the extension of the listing agreement, noting the fees were fair and reasonable.

The applicants sought $430,000 in costs following a successful application regarding a construction dispute.

The respondents argued that a settlement offer they made should limit the applicants' costs to the period before the offer, and that disbursements for online legal research should not be compensable.

The court found that the respondents' non-monetary settlement offer was more favourable than the judgment obtained by the applicants, as it would have led to a faster final determination of the underlying dispute.

Consequently, the applicants' costs were limited to $92,119.92 incurred before the offer.

The court also disallowed the $4,060.18 claimed for online legal research, finding the applicants failed to prove these costs did not fall within standard office overhead.

The applicants, a consortium of construction companies building the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, sought declarations that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an Emergency under their Project Agreement, entitling them to a Variation Enquiry for an extension of the Substantial Completion Date.

The respondents moved to stay the application, arguing the contract required all litigation to be deferred until after Substantial Completion.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would cause irreparable harm by depriving the applicants of their contractual right to seek an extension.

The court granted the declarations, holding that the pandemic was an Emergency and that the respondents had required the applicants to implement additional or overriding procedures (social distancing), thereby triggering the Variation Enquiry process.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion under Rule 49.09(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing a settlement allegedly reached through email exchanges with a former employee.

The dispute concerned whether the parties had agreed to a settlement and, if so, the scope of an IT consultant’s work to delete and certify the destruction of confidential electronic information taken by the employee prior to departure.

The court held that the parties had reached a binding settlement through their email correspondence, despite subsequent disagreement when counsel attempted to draft formal minutes of settlement.

Interpreting the emails objectively, the court concluded the parties had agreed to the employee’s proposed process for wiping devices, but using the employer’s chosen IT consultant at the employee’s cost.

The employer’s later insistence on a broader “full sweep” did not amount to repudiation of the settlement.

Judgment was granted enforcing the settlement on the terms determined by the court.

A physician applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for remedies following an unlawful police search of his home computer that uncovered child pornography.

The criminal charges were withdrawn due to an invalid search warrant, but the physician’s professional regulator obtained a copy of the hard drive and commenced disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant sought orders requiring destruction of the copied hard drive and prohibiting the regulator from relying on the evidence in the discipline hearing.

The court assumed serious Charter breaches, including possible bad faith by police, but held that neither destruction nor prohibition was appropriate or just in the circumstances.

The Discipline Committee was best positioned to determine the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24(2) in the administrative proceeding.

Former directors, officers, and consultants of Look Communications Inc. sought interim advancement of their legal fees to defend against an action brought by Look alleging breach of fiduciary duty regarding bonus and equity cancellation payments.

The court held that s. 124(4) of the CBCA applies to actions brought directly by the corporation, requiring court approval for advancement.

The court found Look established a strong prima facie case of mala fides against the directors and officers, rebutting the presumption of good faith.

Advancement was denied for all applicants except one employee, Dolgonos, whose entitlement arose under an indemnity agreement not subject to s. 124(4).