Nathan J. Shaheen

The plaintiff commenced an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression remedies arising from his ouster as director and CEO of the defendant corporation.

The defendants filed a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, claiming the plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement.

The defendants failed to properly advance their motion, initially abandoning it for six weeks, then repackaging it as a rule 21 motion.

After multiple procedural disputes, case conferences, and a motion for leave to appeal a case conference endorsement, the defendants failed to file their motion confirmation form by the required deadline.

The motion was deemed abandoned under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, finding the defendants engaged in improper delaying tactics throughout the nine-month proceeding.

The Kahu Defendants moved to dismiss Park Lawn Corporation's action for knowing assistance as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), arguing it was an improper attempt to re-litigate issues from a previously settled action against a former CEO.

The court denied the motion, finding that Park Lawn was not aware of the Kahu Defendants' alleged misconduct at the time of the previous settlement, the facts and causes of action were not identical, and the case law allows for several liability in knowing assistance claims, which was consistent with the terms of the prior release.

The court also clarified that a consent dismissal does not automatically lead to an abuse of process finding unless the issues could have been raised in the prior action.

The defendants, Michael Slattery and Skylark Holdings Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

They argued that the plaintiffs had not sustained any damages and had breached the immediate disclosure rule by failing to disclose a partial settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding damages due to conflicting evidence on reliance, and determining that the partial settlement did not significantly alter the litigation dynamics to constitute a breach of the immediate disclosure rule.

This endorsement concerns two motions for court approval of settlements and a trust variation under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 1(1) of the Variation of Trusts Act.

The primary applicant, an elderly individual under disability, sought approval of two settlements: one with his former executive assistant, Jenny Bassett, and another with his nephew, Sotheby Ketchen.

These settlements aimed to resolve disputes regarding the validity of trust amendments, the appointment of trustees, and the individual's capacity.

The court also addressed the nunc pro tunc appointment of a litigation guardian for the individual, including the issue of an out-of-province litigation guardian.

The court approved both settlements and the proposed variation of the trust, finding them to be in the best interests of the party under disability and consistent with the settlor's original intentions.

This case addresses a corporate deadlock within AnalytixInsight Inc. (ALY) between two factions of its board of directors, stemming from serious allegations of misconduct, including insider tipping, self-dealing, and material non-disclosure, against the former CEO and his allies.

The Applicant Faction sought an investigation under the Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and oppression remedy relief.

The court found a prima facie case of oppressive and dishonest conduct by the Respondent Faction, warranting immediate interim intervention.

An inspector was ordered to investigate the allegations, and the alleged wrongdoers were temporarily precluded from board participation, with an interim board appointed to ensure company functionality.

The Bank of Nevis International Limited (BONIL) appealed the dismissal of its action against Mark Kucher and BNI Holdcorp Ltd. The motion judge had dismissed BONIL's action, determining that Nevis, not Ontario, was the proper forum based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause and, alternatively, forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed BONIL's appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the forum selection clause applied to Mr. Kucher despite him not being a direct party to the agreement, and that Nevis was the more appropriate forum.

The respondents in an appeal moved for security for costs against the appellant, a Nevisian bank with no assets in Ontario.

The underlying action, dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, was initiated by the appellant against the respondents for defamation and breach of confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, finding good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and noting the appellant's lack of connection to Ontario and the context of criminal charges against its beneficial owner.

Nobul Technologies Inc. brought a motion for a prospective order to restrain a former director, Michael Cappuccitti, from contravening a non-disparagement provision by communicating with shareholders.

Cappuccitti had sent emails to shareholders attaching his statement of claim in a separate action against Nobul, after Nobul refused to circulate it, despite having circulated its own statement of claim against Cappuccitti.

The court found that Cappuccitti's email was not disparaging, noting it was a cover note to circulate a statement of claim with a clear caveat that allegations were unproven.

The court emphasized shareholders' right to communicate and questioned Nobul's "clean hands" in seeking the injunction.

The motion was dismissed as there was no serious issue to be tried regarding a breach of the non-disparagement clause.

The plaintiff moved to disqualify Norton Rose Fulbright LLP (NRF) from acting as lawyers of record for the K2 defendants.

The plaintiff argued that it was a current client of NRF for patent applications, and that NRF's representation of the K2 defendants in this litigation, which involved allegations that the plaintiff's core technology did not exist, created a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The court found that the two mandates were substantially related and that the bright line rule applied, rendering the advance waiver in NRF's engagement letter ineffective.

The motion to disqualify NRF was granted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash an appeal.

The underlying order, which was the subject of the appeal, concerned the validity of service on the appellant.

The Court determined that orders relating to the validity of service are interlocutory, and therefore, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was allowed, and the appeal was quashed.

The Court noted that the appellant should not be prejudiced by the delay in bringing the matter before the Divisional Court, and counsel for the respondent agreed not to object to a timely extension of time for a motion for leave to appeal in the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff, Shanghai Lianyin Investment Co., Ltd. (SLIC), brought a motion for an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning two Ontario properties registered in the name of the defendant Lichun Guo, alleging they were held in resulting trust for her husband, Charles Lu, against whom SLIC held a CAD$233 million arbitral award.

Concurrently, Ms. Guo brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The court dismissed SLIC's preservation order motion, ruling that Rule 45.01 is not the appropriate mechanism for preventing asset dissipation before judgment where the plaintiff does not assert a legal right to the specific assets, but rather seeks to satisfy a general monetary judgment.

Such relief requires meeting the stricter test for a Mareva injunction or a certificate of pending litigation.

The court granted Ms. Guo's motion for security for costs, finding that SLIC, as an out-of-province corporation with insufficient Ontario assets, did not demonstrate a "good chance of success" on the merits of its complex resulting trust claim, particularly given the unsettled legal question in Ontario regarding a creditor's ability to enforce a judgment against property held by a spouse in resulting trust without an allegation of fraudulent conveyance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the production of financial records relating to mortgages held by the defendants in trust for the plaintiffs, alleging a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate funds.

The defendants argued that the documents should be produced in the ordinary course of litigation.

The court held that beneficiaries of a trust have a proprietary right to records relevant to an accounting for the trust property, separate from the ordinary rules of discovery, and ordered the defendants to produce the requested documents or confirm their non-existence.

The Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank Limited (SIB) appealed the dismissal of their negligence claim against The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank).

SIB was a vehicle for a massive Ponzi scheme.

The Liquidators claimed TD Bank was negligent in providing correspondent banking services by failing to detect and protect SIB from insider abuse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to monitor SIB for internal fraud, as this fell outside the scope of TD Bank's undertaking as a correspondent bank.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's alternative finding that even if a duty existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, and that the trial judge's procedural rulings regarding witness recall were fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties, Park Lawn Corporation and J. Bradley Green, brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation counterclaim, which was denied.

The responding party, Kahu Capital Partners Ltd., sought costs for the motion.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act to award partial indemnity costs to the responding party, finding that the moving parties engaged in unnecessary provocative litigating in the public domain and opportunist cost-mongering.

Park Lawn Corporation and its CEO, J. Bradley Green, brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation counterclaim filed by Kahu Capital Partners Ltd. The counterclaim arose after Green made allegedly defamatory statements about Kahu Capital in a trade newsletter, accusing the firm of complicity in the alleged wrongdoings of Park Lawn's former CEO.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the statements related to a matter of public interest, there were grounds to believe the counterclaim had substantial merit and that the moving parties had no valid defence.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by Kahu Capital outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The respondents (Purchaser) brought a motion to stay an application by the applicant (Vendor) for production of documents related to post-closing adjustments in a share purchase agreement.

The core issue was whether a clause in the SPA, which referred unresolved matters to an "Independent Accountant" for a binding determination, constituted an arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act, 1991, or merely an expert determination clause.

Applying the indicia from Sport Maska Inc. v. Zittrer, the court found that the clause was an arbitration agreement because it involved a formulated dispute, required the Independent Accountant to exercise a judicial function based on party submissions, and resulted in a final and binding decision.

Consequently, the court granted the stay of the Production Application, holding that all issues related to the working capital adjustment, including document production, should be determined by the Independent Accountant (arbitrator) in the first instance.

The joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank (SIB) and a group of investors brought actions against TD Bank, SIB's primary U.S. dollar correspondent bank, for knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

The plaintiffs alleged that TD Bank should have detected and prevented the massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by SIB's owner, Allen Stanford.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the actions, finding that TD Bank had no actual knowledge of the fraud and was not reckless or wilfully blind.

The court also held that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to protect its customer from insider abuse, and even if it did, it met the standard of care of a reasonable banker during the relevant period.

In a class action where core negligence claims were dismissed on appeal and the remaining "knowing assistance" claim was conceded as having no prospect of success, the action was formally dismissed.

The defendant auditor sought $485,000 in costs for defending the action.

The Law Foundation of Ontario (LFO), which funded the plaintiff through the Class Proceeding Fund, resisted this amount, arguing that previous costs awards covered the merits.

The court found the defendant was entitled to costs for the "knowing assistance" claim but deemed the requested amount excessive.

Applying a 40% discount to the plaintiff's estimated actual costs for this component, the court awarded $68,000 for the action and an additional $4,000 for the costs motion, totaling $72,000, payable by the LFO/CPF to the defendant.

The appellant successfully appealed a summary judgment in a class proceeding.

The motion judge had found that the auditor owed a duty of care to the investor clients of Buckingham Securities regarding the audit of Form 9 reports filed with the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, finding no duty of care was owed despite the auditor's negligence.

The appeal addressed the application of the Anns/Cooper test for establishing duty of care.

The court awarded the successful appellant costs on a partial indemnity basis.

A class action was brought against an auditor for negligently auditing Form 9 reports filed with the Ontario Securities Commission that falsely confirmed a securities dealer's compliance with segregation and minimum capital requirements.

The dealer subsequently failed and investors lost millions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the class, finding the auditor owed a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that no duty of care existed because there was insufficient proximity between the auditor and the class members.

The class members never saw or knew of the Form 9 reports, made no representations to them, and the interposition of the OSC and the dealer between the auditor and the class rendered the relationship too remote.