Max Anthony Skrow

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The applicant, Donald Bodkin, moved for an order to convert his application into an action under Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the case involved highly contested facts, credibility issues, and required processes inherent to an action like pleadings and examinations for discovery.

The respondents opposed the motion, citing the applicant's legal experience, potential limitation period issues, and alleged delay tactics.

The court found that the test for conversion was met due to significant material facts in dispute, complex issues requiring credibility assessment, and the necessity of a full discovery process.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the conversion, finding no uncompensable prejudice to the respondents.