Noah G. Aresta

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following a trial regarding the estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance.

The court considered submissions from both parties, each seeking costs on different bases, but ultimately determined that no costs should be awarded to any party due to the divided success at trial and the nature of the family estate dispute.

Each party is to bear their own costs.

This addendum corrects a factual error in the reasons for decision released February 5, 2025, regarding the date on which shares were given to the parties.

The court clarifies that the shares were given at Christmas 1996, not Christmas 2019, as previously stated in paragraph 169.

The applicant, common-law spouse of the deceased, sought an additional $1 million from the estate based on an alleged secret trust and an order for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The applicant had already received $1 million from the will and cohabitation agreement.

The court dismissed the secret trust claim, finding no clear intention, communication, or acceptance of a trust beyond the existing testamentary provisions.

The dependant support claim was also dismissed, as the court found the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicant, considering her financial independence under the cohabitation agreement, the deceased's lifetime support, and the applicant's current assets, including an imputed $250,000 gift she made to her daughter.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sought the appointment of an interim receiver over one of the defendant corporations (2502511 Ontario Corp.) and the continuation of a Mareva injunction, alleging fraudulent depletion of its reserve account.

The defendants opposed the receiver appointment and sought the lifting of the Mareva injunction.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and noted the defendants' non-compliance with disclosure obligations and previous court orders.

Given the significant risk of asset dissipation and the defendants' failure to operate transparently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a limited interim receiver over 2502511 Ontario Corp. and extended the Mareva injunction, while authorizing a reduced monthly living expense for one defendant.

The plaintiff, Joseph Grimaldi, sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause less than five months into his employment as a senior project manager.

Grimaldi claimed entitlement to a payment based on shares in the defendant company as part of his employment contract.

The court interpreted the employment contract, finding that shares would only transfer after five years of service and annual payments were akin to a bonus based on company value.

The court assessed reasonable notice using Bardal factors, finding no inducement or bad faith dismissal.

It determined a reasonable notice period of five months and two weeks.

Grimaldi's claims for annual payment and shares were dismissed due to the notice period not reaching the accrual date and lack of evidence for company valuation.

The claim against the individual defendant, Vince Volpe, was dismissed due to lack of evidence for personal liability.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for damages following a truck fire, asserting claims for breach of contract (failure to provide first-party insurance) and negligent misrepresentation (regarding insurance coverage).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the breach of contract claim, affirming the trial judge's interpretation that the respondent was only obligated to make existing insurance available, not to secure full coverage.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the negligent misrepresentation claim, finding the trial judge erred in legal principle by not making a definitive factual finding on whether the representation was made and by misapplying the elements of the negligent misrepresentation test.

A new trial was ordered solely for the negligent misrepresentation claim.

This is an appeal from a trial judgment concerning a breach of an employment contract.

The appellants, Verge Insurance Brokers Ltd. and Mark Sherk, challenged the trial judge's findings on liability and damages.

The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of a contractual provision allowing the respondent, Ryan Lindsay, to purchase his book of business upon resignation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusion that Verge breached the contract by failing to provide accurate account information and sufficient time for Lindsay to close the transaction.

The court affirmed the trial judge's damages award, applying a standard of substantial deference to contractual interpretation and factual findings on loss of profits.