Mel Hogg

The plaintiffs brought an action for the release of two tranches of escrow funds held pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The defendant moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration, arguing its claims for equitable set-off fell under the agreement's arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the claim for the first tranche was a proper matter for summary judgment and fell within the statutory exception to mandatory arbitration.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the first tranche, holding that the defendant's unliquidated claims for equitable set-off could not be used to withhold the escrow funds.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the accounting adjustments for the second tranche and ordered a mini-trial.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for allegedly breaching a software license agreement by using proprietary source code to develop a competing product.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order to inspect the defendants' computer systems.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as traditional documentary discovery had not yet occurred, and noting that the proposed inspection was wide-ranging and highly intrusive.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to bring a new motion after discovery.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve class action settlements with the Sumitomo and GS Electech defendants regarding alleged price-fixing of automotive wire harness systems, electronic control units, and heating control panels.

The court found the settlements, totaling $11 million for Sumitomo and $120,000 for GS Electech, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness compared to U.S. settlements and potential damages.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought motions for settlement approval and fee approval in several class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The court certified the actions against Yazaki and Chiyoda for settlement purposes.

The court approved settlements with Yazaki and Chiyoda totaling over $11 million, noting that class counsel provided supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amounts fell within the zone of reasonableness.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee request.

The applicant general partner sought a declaration that a third‑party offer to purchase limited partnership units was not bona fide and was a sham designed to trigger right‑of‑first‑refusal provisions in a partnership agreement.

The applicant argued the offer was structured to allow a particular limited partner to obtain sufficient units to gain a veto over extraordinary resolutions requiring 75% approval.

The court considered the legal test for bona fide offers in the context of rights of first refusal, including whether the offer was made in good faith, genuine, and not a sham.

The court held that the offer was a legitimate third‑party offer at a reasonable price and that the evidence did not establish an absence of bona fides.

The application for a declaration was dismissed.