Maurice Neirinck

Rosemont brought an application against Cityzien and Mr. Faraci regarding an abortive real estate transaction and property management dispute.

Rosemont and Cityzien reached a partial settlement, which was negotiated by a Cityzien director without the required unanimous shareholder approval.

Rosemont moved to enforce the settlement, while Mr. Faraci moved to permanently stay the application against him, arguing that the failure to promptly disclose the settlement—which changed the litigation landscape by aligning Rosemont and Cityzien against him—constituted an abuse of process.

The court refused to enforce the settlement, finding it unauthorized and improvident, and granted the stay against Mr. Faraci, holding that the delayed disclosure of the settlement was an abuse of process.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order denying the production of a non-party employee's personnel file.

The plaintiff alleged the employee who worked on its machinery was impaired by alcohol and sought the file for relevance.

The Master denied the request based on proportionality and the employee's privacy interests.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's balancing of the marginal relevance of the file against the profound intrusion into the non-party employee's sensitive health and privacy information.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, an officer of their corporation, fraudulently and without authorization registered two mortgages against their properties.

They also sued the lawyer who registered the mortgages for negligence and the mortgagees for relying on the mortgages despite alleged red flags.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the officer had actual authority to bind the corporation under its by-laws, the plaintiff was aware of and benefited from the mortgages as part of a scheme to avoid foreign creditors, the lawyer met the standard of care, and the mortgagees were protected by the indoor management rule and the Land Titles Act.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $741,000 in damages, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs prior to the plaintiff's offer to settle, finding that the defendant's bad faith did not amount to egregious conduct.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer to settle, as the plaintiff obtained a judgment more favourable than its offer.

Costs were fixed at $159,666.62, with reductions made for disproportionate time spent by senior counsel.

The applicants sought the partition and sale of two industrial properties owned by corporations in which they held shares, following a breakdown in the business relationship with the respondents.

The respondents argued that the applicants had no interest in the land because the properties were owned by the corporations.

The court dismissed the application, holding that shareholders do not have a possessory interest in property owned by a corporation, and therefore the applicants had no prima facie right to partition under the Partition Act.

The plaintiff mortgagor brought an action against the defendant mortgagees for the improvident sale of a 125-acre development property under a power of sale.

The property was sold for $12.5 million.

The court found that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain the fair market value of the property, having listed it at an inordinately low price, failed to adequately market it, unreasonably restricted the field of potential buyers, and acted with undue haste.

After reviewing competing appraisal evidence, the court determined the fair market value of the property at the time of sale was $16 million.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3.5 million in damages, representing the difference between the fair market value and the sale price.