Nadia Charlotte Imelda Campion

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding a request to vary a trial costs award.

Following a successful appeal and cross-appeal by the Respondents (plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim), they sought to vary the trial costs award, arguing entitlement to a higher scale due to beating a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The Appellants (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) opposed this request.

The Court declined to vary its decision, noting that the Respondents had not appealed or sought leave to appeal the trial costs, nor had they raised the issue in their notices of cross-appeal or in their submissions on costs.

The respondents were successful in resisting appeals by the Varma/Madra Appellants and the Palihapitiya Appellants, and succeeded on their cross-appeal.

They sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found no justification for a higher scale and awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $300,000, payable equally by the two groups of appellants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by two groups of appellants (Varma/Madra and Palihapitiya) and allowed a cross-appeal by the respondents.

The case involved corporate malfeasance, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, knowing assistance, and conspiracy related to the establishment of a competing fund (Annex Fund) and the undervalued sale of a technology company (Xtreme Labs), including the concealment of an equity interest in Hatch Labs (Tinder).

The trial judge's findings of liability for damages and disgorgement were largely upheld, and the disgorgement amount was increased on cross-appeal to serve a stronger deterrent purpose.

The court affirmed that directors of a corporate general partner can owe fiduciary duties directly to a limited partnership.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totaling over $260,000.

The court found the requested amounts excessive given the length and complexity of the hearing, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $50,000 to Israel and $36,000 to CTCC, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, Argentine citizens, brought an action in Ontario against the State of Israel and its Canadian fiscal agent, seeking to recover proceeds from two bonds issued by Israel in the name of their great-uncle's estate.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Israel was the more appropriate forum.

The court granted the motion, finding that the presumptive connecting factors to Ontario were weak and rebutted, as the core of the dispute involved contracts formed and torts allegedly committed outside of Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it because Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum based on the location of witnesses, applicable law, and enforcement considerations.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, substantially agreeing with the reasons provided by the lower court judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant brought an application to enforce his rights under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding a cannabis licence in Zimbabwe.

The respondents moved to stay the proceedings, arguing the MOA mandated arbitration at the London Court of International Arbitration.

The applicant argued the MOA also contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause for Canadian courts, creating a conflict that allowed him to choose the forum.

The court found that it was arguable the dispute fell within the mandatory arbitration provision and, applying the competence-competence principle, stayed the application to allow the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The defendants, withdrawn partners of an insurance defence law firm, brought a motion under Rule 45.02 for an order directing the plaintiff partnership to pay their capital repayment amounts into court pending trial.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendants for over $7 million for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, asserting a right of set-off against the capital.

The court found that the capital account constituted a specific fund and that there was a serious issue to be tried.

However, the court dismissed the motion for payment into court because the defendants failed to establish a risk of dissipation, instead ordering the plaintiffs to provide quarterly financial disclosure and not expose the capital to differential risk.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to strike the plaintiff's claim against an individual defendant (Sam Mizrahi) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, an order requiring the plaintiff and its employee to undertake not to interfere with the defendants' economic relations, and security for costs.

The court granted the motion to strike the claim against the individual defendant without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action and that it was frivolous/vexatious.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed as there was no underlying cause of action.

Security for costs was granted in the amount of $200,000, payable in installments.

The respondent Picture Perfect Film Assets, LLC (PPFA) brought a motion to stay an application by the MacLaren Art Centre (MAC) concerning the ownership and sale of Rodin bronze sculptures.

PPFA argued for a stay based on forum non conveniens, issue estoppel, res judicata, abuse of process, and the 'good case management rule,' favouring a broader, earlier-filed Washington action.

MAC contended that its Ontario application, rooted in local bankruptcy proceedings and involving Ontario parties and law, was appropriate.

The court dismissed PPFA's motion, finding that Ontario was an appropriate forum and PPFA failed to demonstrate that Washington was 'clearly more appropriate' under the forum non conveniens analysis.

The court also declined to apply equitable doctrines or the good case management rule to stay the Ontario proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for the appointment of an investigator under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to determine if a prima facie case of oppressive conduct was established and by requiring them to prove oppression on the merits.

The court found the motion judge applied the correct test and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

Following a trial where the plaintiff university successfully proved that the defendants engaged in fraudulent activities and breached their fiduciary duties, the parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff full indemnity costs against the primary defendants who orchestrated the fraud, and partial indemnity costs against the defendants involved only in fraudulent conveyances.

No costs were awarded for earlier motions due to divided success.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration of oppression and the appointment of an inspector under ss. 161 and 248 of the OBCA to investigate the defendants' companies involved in two condominium development projects.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing under s. 161 as they were not beneficial shareholders, and failed to establish a prima facie case of oppression under s. 248.

The court also held that appointing an inspector was inappropriate as the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits, and the plaintiffs already had access to extensive financial information.

The plaintiff university brought an action against its former Assistant Vice-President and Director of Maintenance, alleging they orchestrated multiple fraudulent schemes, including false invoicing, kickbacks, and using university resources for personal residence improvements.

The court found the defendants liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, ordering them to pay damages.

The court also voided the transfer of the primary defendant's properties to his family members as fraudulent conveyances and rescinded his severance agreement due to material non-disclosure of his fraudulent activities.

The appellant brought an oppression remedy claim against his siblings regarding the sale of shares in a family business and the failure to provide information.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on summary judgment as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while summary judgment is generally not available for applications under Rule 14, the procedural defect caused no prejudice.

However, the Court found that the respondents' subsequent application for a valuator constituted a new, discrete act of oppression.

Therefore, the oppression claim was not statute-barred.

The appeal was allowed and the matter directed to trial.

The moving party and respondent entered into a joint venture to develop condominiums.

After the moving party's family assets were frozen, he transferred his shares in the project companies to the respondent to allow the respondent to secure financing, executing a document styled as a 'trust agreement'.

The moving party later brought a motion seeking the return of the shares, arguing the agreement created a bare trust that could be collapsed under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the document was a contractual agreement rather than a trust, and that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier would not apply regardless because the moving party did not have absolute beneficial ownership of the shares.

The plaintiff railway company sought interlocutory injunctive relief after former employees joined a direct competitor and allegedly downloaded and circulated confidential commercial information, including customer lists and revenue data, to solicit the plaintiff’s clients.

The parties agreed to an injunction preserving confidential information and restricting its use, but disputed whether an independent court-appointed monitor should oversee compliance with the order.

The court found the defendants had initially fallen short in complying with an earlier undertaking but had taken substantial remedial steps, including forensic searches, employee discipline, and written directives prohibiting use of the information.

The court concluded that appointing a monitor with broad investigative and supervisory powers would be overly intrusive into the defendant corporation’s business operations.

The court held that the contempt power and the existing order sufficiently protected the plaintiff’s interests.

The court addressed disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of Minutes of Settlement in estate litigation between family members and an estate trustee during litigation.

Following earlier endorsements clarifying settlement terms, the judge directed the parties to submit competing draft orders reflecting the intended disposition.

The principal issues concerned the timing of a payment obligation tied to a $500,000 amount from an estate interest and whether provisions addressing the estate trustee’s role should appear in the final order.

Applying a “final offer selection” approach, the court concluded that the draft orders proposed by the estate trustee most accurately reflected the settlement and prior endorsements.

The court therefore signed and entered those orders.