Nancy Jane Tourgis

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' personal action for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression, arguing it was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel due to a prior ruling denying leave to commence a derivative action.

The court dismissed the motion to stay under the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the prior ruling did not determine personal rights or make binding findings of fact.

However, the court granted a stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act pending the plaintiffs' appeal of the derivative action ruling, to prevent duplication of resources and inconsistent results.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding he breached a non-competition provision in a Shareholders Agreement.

The appellant argued this finding was inconsistent with the trial judge's conclusion that he did not breach a fiduciary duty when he left his employment and took a specific client's business.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding there was no inconsistency because the Shareholders Agreement required the appellant to relinquish his shares to avoid the non-competition provision, which he failed to do.

The plaintiffs appealed an order determining that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens for their claims of breach of contract and misrepresentation against their insurance brokers and insurers.

The claims arose from a lapsed umbrella liability policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the central core of the lawsuit concerned contracts and representations made in Quebec, and that the plaintiffs' presence in Ontario was insignificant.

The tenants appealed an eviction order and a jurisdictional ruling made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The Court found that meaningful appellate review was impossible due to a malfunction that resulted in missing transcripts for a full day of evidence, combined with the Board member's failure to provide adequate reasons for her decision.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay a $3.3 million equalization payment, retroactive child support, ongoing child support, and costs including a $150,000 premium.

The core issues involved whether a cottage owned by the husband's numbered company constituted a matrimonial home, the valuation of his business, and the appropriateness of the support and costs awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to pierce the corporate veil regarding the cottage and accepted the business valuation and support orders.

However, applying recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the $150,000 costs premium.

The respondent wife's cross-appeal seeking higher pre-judgment interest was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the wrongful distribution of corporate assets to themselves, to the detriment of the respondent shareholder.

The appellants argued the judgment should be set aside because the trial judge had also conducted the pre-trial conference, contrary to Rule 50.04.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants had explicitly waived any objection to the trial judge presiding and suffered no prejudice.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on the wrongful distribution of assets and the imposition of liability on the appellants under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.