Michael Bookman

The Receiver brought a motion for court approval of multiple settlement agreements resolving litigation arising from the receivership of Distinct Infrastructure Group Inc., and for a sealing order over the confidential settlement terms.

The court approved the settlements, finding them to be a fair and reasonable commercial resolution.

The court also granted the sealing order, applying the Sherman Estate test and finding that the public interest in promoting settlements and preserving commercially sensitive information outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Judge's order dismissing its motion for a protective order over the production of its financial statements to the defendants, who are direct competitors.

The plaintiff sought to limit disclosure to 'counsel's eyes only', arguing the statements contained confidential and commercially sensitive information.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in concluding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real and substantial risk of serious financial harm.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as the proposed evidence would not be conclusive of the issue on appeal.

The parties agreed not to seek any costs of the appeal motions or the appeals.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement reflecting this agreement, with no costs awarded.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were awarded $358,900, the court determined the scale and quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity scale based on an unrevoked Rule 49 settlement offer.

The court found the offer triggered Rule 49 consequences and awarded the plaintiffs $90,000 in fees plus disbursements and taxes, applying principles of indemnity and proportionality.

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully established oppression and was awarded approximately $4.2 million for her shares and termination damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $1.4 million, while the defendants argued for significant reductions based on the plaintiff's lack of success on several discrete issues.

The court rejected a strict distributive costs approach but reduced the plaintiff's fees by 20% to reflect unsuccessful claims, and made further deductions for post-trial motions and excessive counsel.

The plaintiff was awarded $608,960 in fees and $194,933.33 in disbursements.

Following a trial where the defendants were ordered to repurchase the plaintiff's shares, the plaintiffs sought directions on the transaction structure to ensure tax efficiency.

The defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction as the issue was not pleaded and the court was functus officio.

The court held it had jurisdiction under s. 241(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, noting the issue was raised during trial and fell within the broad remedial powers for oppression.

The court established a process for filing further evidence to resolve the transaction structure.

Following a trial under the oppression remedy, both parties brought motions under Rule 59.06(1) to correct alleged errors in the court's reasons.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to remove references to a personal relationship and their claim of an arithmetic error in the fair value calculation.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to correct arithmetic errors, increasing the fair value of the corporation by $0.2 million and the equitable compensation awarded to $605,579.

The plaintiffs' request for compound interest was dismissed as it was not pleaded and lacked an evidentiary foundation.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of the defendant, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking declarations that the defendant franchisor breached the Arthur Wishart Act by failing to provide a disclosure document upon renewal of their franchise agreement, and breached its duty of fair dealing.

The franchisor argued it was exempt from providing a disclosure document under s. 5(7)(f) of the Act because there was no material change.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that whether the terms of the renewal agreement constituted a material change, especially in the context of the franchisor's shift toward a corporate service model, presented a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant brought a motion to compel answers to numerous questions refused or taken under advisement during the discovery of the plaintiff’s representative.

The action involved a dispute over whether a transaction transferring investment advisors from one dealer to another constituted a share sale or an asset sale, and whether the defendant had resigned or was constructively dismissed.

The court considered the scope of relevance at discovery, the role of surrounding circumstances in contractual interpretation, and the evidentiary burden required to sustain claims of privilege.

Most questions relating to the due diligence process, the structure and purpose of the transaction vehicle, and financial information relevant to alleged constructive dismissal and damages were ordered answered.

Several questions were refused where they were speculative, irrelevant, or too remote from the issues in dispute.