Michael Binetti

Following a trial where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim was granted in part, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's oppressive conduct and a prior award of punitive damages.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, finding it would result in double compensation, and instead awarded partial indemnity costs subject to a significant discount for time spent on unsuccessful allegations.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs to a defendant to the counterclaim who successfully defended against unproven allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff, the former President of a family-run painting corporation, brought an action for oppression and wrongful dismissal after being terminated and removed as a director.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging the plaintiff misappropriated corporate funds, redirected rebates, and performed cash jobs for personal benefit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding his termination was justified for cause due to his dishonest conduct.

The court granted the counterclaim in part, ordering the plaintiff to pay $470,000 for redirected rebates and cash jobs, refund unauthorized transfers, disgorge profits, and pay $75,000 in punitive damages for reprehensible self-dealing.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiff commenced an action in 1989 alleging the defendants dumped coal tar waste that migrated onto its property.

After 25 years of litigation, the defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that while the initial 14 years of delay were excusable due to collaborative settlement efforts, the plaintiff's failure to advance the litigation after 2003 was inordinate and inexcusable.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice, as it had not preserved the evidence of key witnesses who had since passed away.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.