Morris Cooper

The plaintiff, New York Stock Exchange, LLC (NYSE), brought a motion to compel discovery answers and production, while the defendants moved to strike NYSE's notice of examination for a corporate representative and substitute another.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, affirming NYSE's prima facie right to choose its deponent, Olga Sementchoukova, given her knowledge of the financial transactions at issue.

The court largely granted NYSE's motion to compel, finding that the defendants had waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading reliance on legal advice from Stikeman Elliot LLP to rebut allegations of fraudulent conveyance and bad faith.

The court ordered production of related legal advice documents and answers to several financial discovery questions, while dismissing others.

The court fixed costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $70,851.70.

The court considered the principles of costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 57.01 and Rule 1.04(1.1) regarding proportionality and access to justice.

It noted that the defendant's offers to settle were not Rule 49 compliant and that the action proceeded under Simplified Procedure (Rule 76), which aims for cost-effectiveness.

Finding the case not complex and the defendant's claimed hours and rates excessive, the court awarded the defendant $25,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration of an easement over the defendants' property, claiming it was his only legal access.

The defendants opposed, arguing no right-of-way existed or had expired.

The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly due to conflicting expert opinions on the conveyancing history and the effect of Land Titles conversion, and unaddressed claims of easement by necessity or adverse possession.

The court emphasized the need for cross-examination of experts and a full judicial determination of the issues.

The plaintiff, an automotive technician, was terminated for cause by the defendant dealership for intentionally misrepresenting the need for brake replacement on a customer's vehicle to generate lucrative work.

The plaintiff sued for common law wrongful dismissal damages and statutory termination/severance pay.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony not credible and concluded that his actions were driven by greed and constituted intentional misrepresentation, striking at the heart of the employment relationship.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding just cause for dismissal and that his conduct met the 'wilful misconduct' exception under the Employment Standards Act, disentitling him to statutory payments.

The plaintiff brought a class action for damages arising from the "Sixties Scoop" alleging that Canada breached its obligation under the 1965 Canada-Ontario Welfare Services Agreement to consult Indian bands before extending child welfare services to reserves.

This failure resulted in the loss of aboriginal identity for thousands of children placed with non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding Canada liable for breaching a common law duty of care, though it did not establish a fiduciary duty.

The case will proceed to the damages assessment stage.

The plaintiffs, a franchisee and its principal, brought an action for rescission of a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart (Franchise Disclosure) Act, 2002, alleging material deficiencies in the franchisor's disclosure document.

The court found three critical deficiencies: the absence of the most recent financial statements, the failure of the franchisor's associate to sign the certificate of truth and accuracy, and the omission of the head lease.

Each deficiency, and certainly all three combined, constituted defective disclosure so material as to amount to "no disclosure at all," thereby triggering the two-year rescission period under s. 6(2) of the Act.

The court rejected the franchisor's arguments that the deficiencies were cured, that disclosure to an agent was sufficient, or that an acknowledgement in the franchise agreement barred the action, citing the Act's consumer protection purpose and "no waiver" provision.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The court awarded the plaintiffs rescission damages totaling $287,289.63, including franchise fees, royalties, rent deposit, leasehold improvements, and equipment.

The appellants appealed an order voiding transfers of funds used to purchase two condominiums, which were found to be fraudulent conveyances intended to defeat the respondent's claims for spousal and child support arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the badges of fraud to shift the evidential burden, nor in his assessment of fraudulent intent at the time of the transactions.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought costs of $13,418.32, including a substantial indemnity portion based on an offer to settle.

The court found Rule 49.10 did not apply as the offer was served on the morning of the hearing.

Considering the mixed success on issues, unnecessary cross-examinations, and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $7,250.

The plaintiff, True North Vantage Inc., brought a motion seeking relief from the deemed undertaking rule to disclose evidence gathered during discoveries to the Hamilton Police Service, alleging that the defendant Steven Zhen Pang committed perjury.

The defendants resisted the motion, arguing issue estoppel or abuse of process, as a privy of the plaintiff had previously sought and been denied the same relief.

The court dismissed the motion on the grounds of issue estoppel, finding that the issue had been finally decided in prior proceedings involving the plaintiff's affiliate, Orbixa, and that the plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate the matter.

The court also found the motion constituted an abuse of process, noting it appeared to be a collateral attack on previous decisions and an attempt to gain leverage.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support and the respondent father sought interim access to their child.

The parties, both medical doctors, had a brief relationship resulting in an unplanned pregnancy.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $150,000 for interim child support purposes, dismissing the applicant's request for interim disbursements and birth expenses without prejudice.

The court also granted the respondent interim access, emphasizing the child's right to a relationship with the father.

The plaintiff, Antonio Marques, was terminated without cause by the defendant, Delmar International Inc., after 7.5 months of employment.

The parties brought a motion for summary judgment to determine three issues: whether a monthly car allowance was part of the plaintiff's remuneration, whether the plaintiff was entitled to a guaranteed bonus payment as part of wrongful dismissal damages, and the amount of common law reasonable notice.

The court found the car allowance was part of remuneration.

The bonus was conditional on the notice period extending to the one-year anniversary of employment.

The court awarded 4 months' reasonable notice, which did not extend to the one-year anniversary, thus disentitling the plaintiff to the bonus.

The plaintiff, a non-golfing shareholder, brought a motion to certify a class action alleging oppression against North Halton Golf and Country Club Limited.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred.

The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding that recent share pricing decisions constituted discrete acts of oppression within the limitation period.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for certification, confirming that a class proceeding can be used for oppression remedies and that the commonality requirement was met despite differing individual expectations regarding remedies.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for a debt of approximately €511,000, claiming it was assigned to him by a German bank.

The defendants admitted the debt but disputed the validity of the assignment under German law.

The court, relying on uncontradicted expert evidence regarding German law, found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a valid assignment, including bilateral execution, clear identification of the assigned claim, proof of signatory authority, and proper notice to the debtors.

The court determined there was a genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the motion for summary judgment, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

The defendant, having successfully dismissed the plaintiff's action on a Rule 21 motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $6,507.08.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the legal issues were novel and that an award of costs would exacerbate family acrimony.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the novelty of the issues and the potential negative impact on the parties' child justified a departure from the usual costs rules.

The court ordered no costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order upholding a Master's decision that denied relief from the deemed undertaking rule.

The moving party wished to disclose discovery documents to regulatory authorities regarding alleged securities infractions and to police regarding alleged perjury by a defendant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's application of the Supreme Court's framework.

The court emphasized that bald allegations without documentary evidence are insufficient to establish the exceptional circumstances required to override the deemed undertaking rule.

Following a judgment setting aside certain transactions as fraudulent conveyances, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondents' coordinated efforts to defeat the course of justice and the applicant's offer to settle justified substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court reduced the costs award by 25% to account for the applicant's divided success on certain issues and her failure to fulfill procedural obligations.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of $83,179.84.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal.

She simultaneously filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against a related entity.

The respondents sought early dismissal, arguing the matter fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction as a broadcaster.

Given the uncertainty regarding the corporate relationships and whether the applicant was employed by a federal or provincial undertaking, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal proceedings.

The applicant sought relief under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act alleging that the respondent debtor transferred funds and assets to associates and family members to defeat enforcement of family law support and equalization orders exceeding $1 million.

The court examined several real estate transactions and financial transfers, including funds used to purchase condominium units and a $325,000 transfer to the debtor’s brother.

Applying the badges of fraud doctrine, the court found that multiple transfers were non‑arm’s‑length, unsupported by consideration, conducted in secrecy, and made while litigation and court orders restricting asset depletion were in effect.

The court concluded that the transfers were intended to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors and declared them void as against the debtor’s creditors.

Orders were granted permitting seizure and sale of properties representing the proceeds of the fraudulent transfers and requiring repayment of funds transferred abroad.

Following a consent order dismissing the action against several defendants and striking the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to a defendant lawyer due to unfounded allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Other defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that costs should be limited or denied due to procedural steps or prior cost awards.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay substantial costs to the moving parties.

In a Commercial List proceeding, the court considered a motion by a court-appointed manager seeking approval of its disallowance of a creditor claim submitted in a claims process order.

The claimant alleged losses arising from a landlord’s breach of a lease relating to delays in providing electrical power to commercial premises.

The court held that the claimant bore the onus of establishing error in the manager’s determination, similar to an appeal from a trustee’s disallowance in bankruptcy proceedings.

The court found the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and further held that the claimant’s execution of an estoppel certificate and failure to provide adequate proof of damages independently justified disallowance.

The manager’s decision was upheld.