Nilou Nezhat

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The defendant doctors appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to compel discovery answers and production of their initial lawyers' file concerning the plaintiff's capacity and whether a de facto litigation guardian existed.

The court found the Master erred in her relevancy and privilege analysis, particularly regarding the importance of counsel's opinion on capacity and the scope of a de facto litigation guardian under s. 7 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appeal was allowed in part, requiring the plaintiffs to produce a revised affidavit of documents and reattend examinations for discovery, with privilege waived for documents relevant to Mr. Wood's capacity and Mr. McQueen's dealings with the initial lawyers.

This appeal concerns whether a court has jurisdiction to extinguish a third party's gross overriding royalty (GOR) interest in land through a vesting order in a receivership proceeding.

The Court of Appeal held that while the court has jurisdiction under section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to grant vesting orders, the motion judge erred in exercising that jurisdiction to extinguish the appellant's GORs, which constituted interests in land akin to ownership interests rather than fixed monetary claims.

However, the appellant failed to appeal within the prescribed 10-day period under the BIA Rules, and the justice of the case did not warrant an extension of time.

The appeal was dismissed, though the appellant retained the $250,000 payment it had received.

The parties disagreed on whether the judge should sign an order dismissing the plaintiff's prior certification and leave motions, or wait for the plaintiff's "motion for reconsideration." The plaintiff argued that signing the order might render the court functus officio, potentially precluding the reconsideration motion.

The defendant argued that the pronouncement of judgment was final and the order should be issued without delay.

The court decided to sign the order, issuing a fiat for its issuance and entry, clarifying that this decision did not determine the functus officio or abuse of process issues, which would be addressed in the context of the plaintiff's omnibus reconsideration motion.

Nobilis Health Corp. sought costs after successfully defending a class action certification motion and leave application brought by Vince Cappelli.

Nobilis requested $200,000 in partial indemnity fees and $311,696.39 in disbursements, primarily for three expert reports.

Cappelli did not oppose the fees but challenged the disbursements as excessive and duplicative.

The court found the expert evidence necessary and critical, despite some overlap, and deemed the disbursements fair and reasonable given the litigation risk.

Costs were awarded to Nobilis as requested, with the Class Proceedings Fund ultimately responsible for payment.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act to bring a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation against the defendant corporation, and to certify the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made material misrepresentations in its financial statements, which were later restated.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff had no reasonable possibility of success because the specific misrepresentations pleaded were not material to a reasonable investor, and the alleged corrective disclosure did not relate to the pleaded misrepresentations.

Consequently, the certification motion was also dismissed.

The court issued its third and final set of reasons following a hearing on June 27, 2018, confirming an interim ruling and addressing costs.

The court drew negative inferences against Greyslone Ltd., Belview Management Ltd., and Mr. Czerlau due to evasive conduct and lack of corporate authority, disallowing claims of privilege over solicitors' files.

It ordered all solicitors' files (Assuras, Lof, Brown) to be delivered to an Independent Supervising Solicitor for review and production of relevant documents to the plaintiff.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $19,878.53 against Mr. Czerlau, Greyslone Ltd., and Belview Management Ltd. jointly and severally, and partial indemnity costs of $13,626.70 against Ms. Assuras, also jointly and severally with the others to that extent.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company (CN), brought a motion to compel the production of files and examination for discovery of three non-party lawyers: Mr. Brown, Mr. Lof, and Ms. Assuras.

The motion arose from a Mareva and Anton Pillar order and a subsequent summary judgment against Greyslone and Belview, which were found to have no legal status at the time of certain transactions and failed to account for $661,000.

Ms. Assuras, counsel for Greyslone and Belview, opposed the motion, asserting privilege, while Mr. Lof and Mr. Brown took no position.

The court found Mr. Czerlau's (who instructed Ms. Assuras) testimony to be evasive and misleading, and inferred that Greyslone and Belview were not acting at arm's length to Mr. Holmes, suggesting they were shams.

Consequently, the court proposed to draw negative inferences against Greyslone and Belview's bona fides, disallow claims of privilege, and ordered the production of the entire files of Ms. Assuras, Mr. Lof, and Mr. Brown to the plaintiff, subject to a 14-day period for further submissions.