Max Anthony Skrow

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the registrar's dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action, which was commenced in 2015 and dismissed for delay in 2024.

The court applied the four-part test for setting aside a dismissal order and found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the initial six years of delay.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, as the defendant's key witness had become medically unable to testify.

The motion was dismissed, and the action remained dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a Letter Rogatory issued by a Florida court in a matrimonial dispute, seeking to examine the respondent, a non-party in Ontario.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant had not met the preconditions for enforcement.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the evidence sought was not otherwise available.

Specifically, the applicant had not taken steps in the foreign proceeding to compel her husband to answer the questions that were being posed to the respondent.

The plaintiff, First of Five Incorporated, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Recipe Unlimited Corporation and J.S.M. Corporation (Ontario) Ltd., from terminating a franchise agreement, lease, and sublease pending the outcome of litigation.

The court found that the plaintiff had a contractual right to renew the franchise, subject to certain conditions, and that the issues raised—including good faith, payment disputes, and the effect of the Arthur Wishart Act—were serious and required trial.

The court held that irreparable harm would result if the injunction were not granted, and the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This appeal arose from a residential real estate development joint venture that ended in dispute over profit overpayments and retained proceeds.

The trial judge found oppression, ordered an accounting, and made findings on set-off, piercing the corporate veil, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found errors in the trial judge's premature dismissal of set-off claims, the personal liability findings against individuals (Rekha and Meena Sharma) by improperly piercing the corporate veil of non-parties or for insufficient reasons, and the finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty.

The Court also determined that the immediate payment orders for net sale proceeds, the pre-judgment interest rate, and the costs award were premature given the outstanding accounting.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside parts of the trial judgment and the entire interest and costs judgment, and directing the Associate Judge conducting the accounting to determine interest and costs after the accounting is completed.

The appellant franchisee appealed a motion judge's decision denying an interlocutory injunction to prevent the termination of its franchise agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's two-paragraph reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to address the renewal clause, the factual disputes, or the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Court declined to decide the injunction on the merits, remitting it to a different judge.

The Court also held that the franchisor's undertaking not to terminate the agreement pending the determination of the injunction motion remained binding through the appeal process.

The complainant, a civilian employee with the OPP, filed a complaint alleging the employer grossly mishandled a workplace investigation and breached its duty of fairness.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction as no term or condition of employment was breached, and that the complaint was untimely.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the objections, finding the complainant established a prima facie case that the employer's respectful workplace policy and duty of fairness constituted terms of employment.

The Board also held that while some earlier events fell outside the mandatory 14-day limitation period, recent communications within the period constituted timely allegations of ongoing breaches.

The plaintiff, Kamran Sheeraz, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for production of documents from non-parties Hina Rizvi and Rizvi Legal Professional Corp. The action arose from a failed mortgage brokerage partnership where the defendant, Shoaib Seathi, allegedly diverted funds and claimed his computer records were corrupted.

The non-parties, a real estate lawyer and her firm, opposed production, citing privilege, the need for client notice, and inconvenience.

The court granted the motion, finding the documents relevant and necessary for a fair trial, especially given the defendant's inability to produce them.

Privilege claims were rejected as the information was either previously disclosed or could be addressed by redaction of client identifiers.

The court also dismissed the argument for personal service on clients, noting the anonymization would protect their identity.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed the election of a delegate to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, arguing she was not an eligible 'producer' under Ontario Regulation 403/10.

The delegate had sold her primary hog operation but continued to raise a small number of hogs for farmgate sales.

The Tribunal found that the delegate met the regulatory definition of a producer at the time of the election, as she owned and produced hogs on a property in the relevant zone.

The appeal was denied.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order dated December 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the appeal be expedited.

The court also directed that the moving party's motion for interim relief be scheduled on an expedited basis before a single judge.

The plaintiff, a franchisee, brought an urgent motion seeking a stay of a prior decision denying injunctive relief and a mandatory injunction to restore possession of the franchise premises, pending leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The franchisor had locked out the plaintiff after the initial injunction motion was dismissed.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, determining that the Divisional Court, as the court to which leave to appeal was being sought, was the proper forum for such interim orders under section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating their franchise agreement.

The court noted that the agreement was set to expire in April 2024 with no automatic renewal clause.

Finding that an injunction would unfairly extend the agreement indefinitely pending litigation, and that the plaintiff could seek monetary damages, the court dismissed the motion.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Chalmers J. dated March 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, fixed in the amount of $3,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff lawyer sued the defendant client for unpaid legal fees and included privileged communications in the statement of claim.

The defendant moved to strike the privileged paragraphs, arguing he had not waived solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that a client's refusal to pay legal fees does not constitute an implied waiver of privilege.

However, the court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to include privileged information necessary to advance the claim.

To protect the privilege, the court ordered the file sealed.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment concerning the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) and related employment agreements.

The dispute arose after the appellants (purchasers of a business) furloughed one of the respondents (sellers/employees) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the respondents asserted was a constructive dismissal.

The SPA included an "Accelerated Provision" for a capital payment if an employee was terminated without cause, and an "Unprofitable Quarter Provision" allowing termination for cause without penalty.

The motion judge found constructive dismissal without cause, triggering the Accelerated Provision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's interpretation that the appellants had not exercised their option to terminate for cause under the Unprofitable Quarter Provision, and that their actions constituted a termination without cause, thereby triggering the payment.

The court emphasized deference to the motion judge's contractual interpretation and rejected arguments of commercial absurdity.

The applicants were wholly successful in an application regarding the control of a non-profit organization.

They sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted the respondents' unjustified delays, failure to respond to settlement offers, and improper conduct in locking the applicants out of corporate accounts.

The court rejected the respondent's argument of inability to pay and awarded the applicants costs fixed at $45,000 all-inclusive.

This decision addresses interest and costs following a trial concerning a defunct joint venture.

The plaintiffs were largely successful at trial, establishing misappropriation of funds by the defendants and lifting the corporate veil.

The court awarded pre-judgment interest at 8% (non-compounded) from January 1, 2012, to November 2, 2021, with an exclusion period for plaintiff's delay.

Post-judgment interest was set at the Courts of Justice Act rates.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, reduced from the claimed amount due to some divided success and costs incurred by defendants from mid-trial document production.

The court found the defendants' conduct, including meritless allegations of dishonesty and introducing new unpleaded theories at trial, justified the substantial indemnity costs.

The applicants, co-founders of a not-for-profit organization, sought declarations and orders against the primary respondent and others for corporate governance breaches and misappropriation of corporate property.

The primary respondent unilaterally declared herself president, installed a new board, and locked the applicants out of corporate accounts, claiming the organization and its assets were part of her PhD study.

The court found the respondent breached corporate legislation, improperly removed directors, and misappropriated corporate property.

The court ordered the return of all corporate property and accounts to the organization and permanently enjoined the primary respondent from holding herself out as president, director, or member, or from using the organization for funding applications or making website changes.

Following a successful appeal that set aside a summary judgment and remitted the matter for trial, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on the costs of the summary judgment motion.

The appellant sought $100,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the respondent argued for a lower amount due to alleged duplicative steps.

The Court fixed the costs of the summary judgment motion payable to the appellant at $80,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court issued a costs endorsement and corrigendum following the dismissal of the responding parties' motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court was informed of two unaccepted offers to settle made by one of the parties seeking costs.

The court also corrected an error regarding funds held as security for costs, clarifying they were solely for the benefit of one party.

The court increased the costs awarded to the party who made the offers to $22,500, finding the requested $35,000 disproportionate for a 1.5-hour motion.

A separate costs award of $7,500 was maintained for the other parties seeking costs.

Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. (JGC) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract and dependent contractor claims against Recipe Unlimited Corporation (Cara).

JGC alleged Cara breached a 2006 consulting agreement, including a stock option provision, and failed to provide reasonable notice upon termination.

The motion judge found JGC waived an auto-renewal clause, terminating the agreement in 2010, and that no other written agreement replaced it.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in finding a unilateral waiver for no consideration and that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the terms governing the parties' relationship after 2008, given the uncertainty in the record and the parties' conduct.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for trial.