Niklas Holmberg

Tricor and Premier entered into a three-year agreement in 2014 for Premier to administer automotive warranty and service contracts.

In 2018, Tricor informed Premier of its intention to transition to a new service platform, Allegiance, without providing 12 months' notice of termination, as Tricor believed the agreement was non-exclusive.

Premier treated this as an anticipatory repudiation, withheld commissions owed to Tricor, and abruptly shut down the service portal.

The court found that the agreement was not exclusive and that Premier breached the contract by withdrawing services without proper notice.

Premier's claims for breach of contract and proprietary rights were dismissed.

Tricor was awarded $1,265,274 in damages for business losses and withheld commissions.

In a defamation appeal arising from newspaper and social media publications targeting the respondent, the appellants challenged liability, damages, costs, and the scope of a permanent injunction.

The Court of Appeal held that statute-barred earlier publications were admitted only for background and context, that the proceeding properly continued under the ordinary procedure after the defence objected to Rule 76, and that damages in defamation were presumed once the elements of the tort were established.

However, the court found the permanent injunction impermissibly broad, disproportionate, and insufficiently precise for enforcement.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part only to set aside and remit the injunctive term for properly defined wording, with appeal costs awarded to the appellants.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion to amend a statement of claim and related motions to strike in a commercial dispute.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, with the defendants voluntarily withdrawing an allegation of similar fact evidence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded only partial indemnity costs, reduced to $10,000, due to the plaintiffs' own conduct and drafting issues that contributed to the need for the motions and adjournments.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs could amend their claim to clarify the involvement of Dunpar Developments Inc. and 1609514 Ontario Inc. in a property transaction, and whether such amendments would constitute an improper withdrawal of admissions.

The court found that the amendments did not withdraw any clear and unambiguous admissions, granted leave to amend, and refused to strike the claim.

The decision reviews the law on admissions in pleadings and the test for granting leave to amend.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for wrongful termination of a Consulting Agreement, and the defendant counterclaimed for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations.

The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding no misrepresentation or reliance.

The court also dismissed the balance of the plaintiffs' claim, finding the defendant was entitled to terminate the Consulting Agreement due to the plaintiffs' wilful conduct harming business relationships through lack of forthrightness.

However, the plaintiffs were granted judgment for unreimbursed expenses.

This decision addresses an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Global News and its journalists to dismiss a libel suit initiated by Wenbin (Vincent) Ke, an Ontario MPP.

Mr. Ke sued after Global News published stories alleging his involvement in a Chinese government election interference scheme, based on leaks from CSIS agents.

The court found that while the reporting concerned a matter of public interest, there were grounds to believe the plaintiff's libel claim had substantial merit and that the defendants' defences of responsible communication and justification (of a lesser truth) could fail at trial.

The court weighed the public interest in protecting the plaintiff's reputation and ensuring democratic integrity against the freedom of expression, concluding that the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue outweighed the interest in protecting the expression.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant, Xiao Yao Zi, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in a libel action, arguing it failed to disclose a cause of action because the defamatory article, in its certified English translation, did not identify the plaintiff, Yeung & Associates.

The plaintiff contended that despite the literal translation, the Chinese characters and accompanying images (photos of premises, website screenshots, social media posts) clearly identified them.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the publication did not refer to the plaintiff, emphasizing that identification is a question of fact for trial and does not solely rely on literal translation.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to recast conspiracy allegations as malice within the libel claim and to clarify how the Chinese publication identified the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Gibson J. dated September 26, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The Métis National Council Secretariat Inc. (MNC) brought a motion seeking joint custody of funds and an online database, and disclosure of records from the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. (MMF).

While the parties largely resolved the substantive issues by consent, they could not agree on costs.

The court found MMF overwhelmingly successful on the motion, as MNC failed to obtain the extraordinary relief it sought, and the modest relief obtained by consent would likely have been provided voluntarily.

The court awarded MMF partial indemnity costs of $213,687.57, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the motion and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The Monitor in the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. and affiliated entities sought court approval for a settlement agreement and an amendment to the Initial Order.

The settlement resolved a dispute over a $5.9 million consulting fee with Mattamy (Downsview) Limited, resulting in a $2.9 million asset for Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. (UTMI).

The amendment increased the authorized intercompany loan limit from $1 million to $4.7 million to reflect actual advances to UTMI.

The court approved both the settlement and the amendment, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the CCAA's purpose, but made the approvals conditional upon obtaining corresponding approval from the Israeli Court, given the intertwined nature of the foreign proceeding.

This endorsement addresses an unopposed motion brought by the Applicants in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Applicants sought an order extending the stay period until January 31, 2024, approving the Monitor’s 58th Report and its activities, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor, Monitor’s counsel, and Applicants’ counsel.

The court found that the Applicants continued to work in good faith and with due diligence, had sufficient resources for the extension period, and that the requested extension and fee approvals were reasonable.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The plaintiff and several defendants brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves allegations by the plaintiff that the defendants engaged in a plan to cause financial harm and confer unlawful benefits upon their departure from the organization.

The court applied principles of relevance and proportionality, ordering the parties to answer certain questions and fulfill specific undertakings while upholding refusals for questions that were irrelevant, disproportionate, or improper.

This decision addresses two cross-motions in complex, joined real estate development actions: the plaintiffs' motion for a further affidavit of documents and the defendants' motion to bifurcate the action and postpone document production.

The court dismissed the defendants' bifurcation motion, holding that bifurcation under Rule 6.1.01 requires party consent, which was absent.

The request for delayed production was also denied, as the defendants failed to demonstrate serious prejudice or that the documents were solely related to damages.

The plaintiffs' production motion was granted, with the court finding the requested documents relevant to both liability and defence, and the request proportionate given the $65 million in dispute.

The court emphasized that the deemed undertaking rule mitigates concerns about commercially sensitive information.

The appellant sold a property to the respondent subject to a vendor take-back mortgage, which required the appellant to remove an easement from title by a specific deadline to avoid a reduction in the purchase price.

The appellant obtained a court order discharging the easement and registered it on title before the deadline.

The respondent argued the condition was not met because the order was still subject to appeal at the deadline.

The Court of Appeal held that the registered discharge order satisfied the mortgage condition, as the land titles system guarantees title upon registration and no stay of the order had been sought.

Mattamy (Downsview) Limited sought to set aside an arbitration award under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction and committed procedural unfairness by refusing to admit relevant evidence.

The court found the arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction as the "New Issue" fell within the broad scope of the arbitration.

However, the court found procedural unfairness and a failure of natural justice due to the arbitrator's refusal to admit the "REALPAC Handbook" evidence, which was relevant to the "New Issue" he himself raised, especially given the respondents did not object and no formal motion was allowed.

The court emphasized that procedural fairness is an independent right, and its denial invalidates the decision regardless of the likely outcome.

The Plaintiffs sought an urgent interim Mareva injunction and ancillary orders against the Defendants without notice, alleging a complex fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of over $1.7 million.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, inferred a serious risk of asset dissipation given the nature of the fraud and the defendants' prior conduct, and determined that irreparable harm would occur if the injunction was not granted.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, and the Plaintiffs provided the necessary undertaking as to damages.

Ancillary disclosure orders and preservation orders for electronic devices were also granted.

The appellant, Armando Scarlato Jr., appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract action on a motion for summary judgment.

He alleged the respondents, Richard Buzbuzian and Jason Monaco, breached an agreement to pay him a commission or finder’s fee for introducing them to a third-party corporation for a proposed IPO.

The motion judge found that emails exchanged did not constitute a contract, lacking essential terms, and alternatively, that the appellant was estopped by a settlement with the third party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that no contract was formed, emphasizing deference to findings of contractual interpretation as mixed fact and law, and concluding that the term sheet did not remedy the contractual deficiencies.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a partially successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendants sought to dismiss the entire action or strike parts of the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim.

The court previously struck the claims of three subsidiary plaintiffs entirely and struck a specific claim of the main plaintiff with leave to amend, while dismissing the defendants' primary request to dismiss the entire action.

The court found the outcome split and, applying principles of costs, awarded the defendants 50% of their partial indemnity costs, fixed at $14,300, to reflect their partial success in narrowing the issues and removing parties.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action or strike the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and (b).

The motion sought to dismiss claims advanced by "Additional TyCorra Plaintiffs" due to lack of privity and to strike claims related to a TFI lease due to a drafting error.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' preliminary objections regarding delay and fresh step.

The court granted the motion to strike the claims of TyCorra Group Inc., TyCorra Leasing Inc., and TyCorra Fleet Solutions Inc. without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action due to lack of privity.

The claim of TyCorra Investments Inc. related to the TFI lease was struck with leave to amend to correct a drafting error.

The balance of the defendants' motion, which sought to strike the main contractual claims based on an interpretation of Right of First Refusal Agreements in the context of related contracts, was dismissed, as the court found a "germ or scintilla" of a cause of action.

The plaintiffs sought complete indemnification for their costs incurred in successfully prosecuting six counts of contempt of court against the defendant.

The court found that the defendant conducted the proceeding reprehensibly by deliberately stalling, running up the plaintiffs' costs, and abusing the court's scheduling indulgences.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $226,816.50.