Corporate/Commercial Law - ODC

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $23,251.25 for unpaid doors.

The appellant argued the respondent fraudulently misrepresented that it would be in Ontario 'for the long run', inducing the contract.

The trial judge found no misrepresentation, preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in his factual findings.

The court also declined to hear new issues raised by the appellant on appeal, as leave was not sought under Rule 61.08(2).

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision, arguing the judge erred in finding its liquidated damages clause was a penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting the key holding below was a factual finding based on credibility that the contract never came into force.

As the contract never commenced, the liquidated damages clause did not apply, rendering the penalty finding obiter.

The court declined to provide guidance on the law of penalties, noting the uncertainty arose from Small Claims Court judges finding the clause produced inequitable results on specific facts.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for breach of contract and granting the respondent banquet hall's counterclaim for unpaid cancellation fees.

The appellant argued the trial judge made factual errors and misapplied the law of mitigation by not requiring the respondent to prove it took active steps to re-book the hall.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding any factual errors were inconsequential.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Southcott Estates, the court held that the onus of proving a failure to mitigate, including that a profitable substitute could have been found, rests entirely on the party alleging the failure.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $16,215.95 for the early termination of a vehicle lease agreement.

At trial, the appellant claimed he did not sign the lease agreement and had an oral agreement that no penalty would apply for early return.

The Deputy Judge found as a fact that the appellant had signed the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Deputy Judge's factual findings and credibility determinations were entitled to deference and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant HVAC rental company appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to return $17,334.09 to the respondent consumer.

The consumer had been forced to pay the amount to discharge liens registered against his home when he sold it, pursuant to a 10-year rental contract.

The trial judge found the buyout and lien provisions were onerous terms in a contract of adhesion that had not been brought to the consumer's attention, applying the Tilden principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The appellant, a minority shareholder in a family holding company, appealed the dismissal of her application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

She sought a court-ordered sale of her shares to her brothers after they rejected her offer to sell and she was unable to find a third-party purchaser.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of liquidity for her shares and that her interests as a shareholder were not unfairly disregarded.

The landlord appealed a trial decision finding that the tenant properly terminated a residential lease and that the landlord was not entitled to charge administrative fees as part of common area and maintenance (CAM) expenses under a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant provided notice in the manner required by the written terms of the lease, and that there was no express or implied term authorizing the landlord to unilaterally charge administrative fees.

The trial judge's interpretation of the lease was subject to deference and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for breach of contract.

The appellant had ordered shrimp from Panama through the respondent, but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency denied the import permit.

The appellant refused to pay for the shipment, arguing frustration of contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the permit denial was foreseeable and that the appellant, as the importer, bore the responsibility and risk of obtaining approval before placing the order.

The plaintiff moved to quash the defendant's appeal of an order granting the plaintiff leave, nunc pro tunc, to commence a derivative action.

The plaintiff argued the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that the motion judge's order was a final order because it disposed of the defendant's limitation period defence, thereby depriving the defendant of a substantive right that could have been determinative of the entire derivative action.

As a final order, leave to appeal was not required, and the motion to quash was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application under the Corporations Act to force the respondent's newly incorporated entity to change its name.

The appellant argued the new corporation improperly took the name of an existing unincorporated ratepayers' association.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the unincorporated association had ceased to exist due to prolonged inactivity and lack of members, meaning the use of its name by the new corporation was not likely to deceive the public.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the costs award against the appellant was upheld.

The plaintiff sought to appeal an order that certified a class proceeding against some defendants but dismissed the certification motion against the defendant underwriters, allowing those claims to proceed individually.

The underwriters brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing that leave to appeal was required under s. 30(2) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff argued it had an appeal as of right under s. 30(1).

The Divisional Court held that because a class proceeding was certified and the claims against the underwriters were not dismissed on the merits but merely directed to proceed individually, the order was procedural and leave to appeal was required.

The motion to quash was granted.

However, the court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal had some merit.

The appellants, minority shareholders of an insolvent corporation, appealed a motion judge's order granting partial summary judgment dismissing their claims for damages for oppression, breach of contract, and tort.

The motion judge found no evidence that the respondents' alleged wrongful conduct caused the appellants' damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of the damages claims, confirming that causation and compensable injury are required for an oppression claim under the Business Corporations Act.

The court made a minor amendment to the order to correct an accidental error regarding declaratory relief, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to stay the action pending the disposition of a separate oppression application involving the respondent's shareholders.

The oppression application included orders prohibiting the respondent from settling the current action.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and stayed the action, finding that the inability to settle the action severely undermined the respondent's authority to pursue it and prejudiced the appellants.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's assessment of conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's corporate control.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring them to pay an outstanding amount on a business loan.

The appellants argued defences of non est factum and unconscionability regarding the personal liability of the individual owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, given the clear structure of the loan document and warnings respecting personal liability.

The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed their appeal of an interim order for payment out of court.

The single judge had quashed the appeal on the basis that the underlying order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The panel agreed that the underlying order, which directed an interim payment out of funds held in court pending the final determination of a shareholder dispute, did not finally dispose of the moving parties' rights and was therefore interlocutory.

The appellant appealed a decision finding his conduct in connection with a family business was oppressive and removing him as a director, officer, and trustee.

The appellant had emptied the company's bank account, attempted to exclude his daughters from the account, and used corporate funds for personal purposes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellant breached his fiduciary duties.

The court held that the remedy of removing him from his roles was appropriate and consistent with the parties' reasonable expectations, given his conduct and the divisive family relationship.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for the production of corporate documents, including financial statements, at the respondents' expense.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed his request to the financial statements of three corporations, claiming to be a 15% shareholder.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the relief sought was premature given a pending appeal of an earlier decision between the parties, and that there was no demonstrated prejudice to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant developer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it breached its duty of fair dealing by refusing to reduce the final sale price for the respondent's commercial condominium units, despite doing so for other purchasers.

The appellant argued the trial judge introduced a novel theory of liability not expressly pleaded by the self-represented respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant knew the substantive case it had to meet and that the trial judge correctly applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew regarding the duty of honest performance.

The appellant, Econo Petroleum Inc., appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to pay unpaid commissions to 2081430 Ontario Inc. and to return a security deposit to Vladimir Gorbatchevski.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in concluding that an informal agreement existed for the payment of commissions, that no set-off damages were owed for lack of notice of termination, and that Econo was responsible for returning the security deposit.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order confirming a worldwide Mareva injunction against him, arguing that an Ontario court cannot grant such an injunction when the defendant has no assets in the jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the court's in personam jurisdiction allows it to grant a Mareva injunction even if the defendant has no assets in Ontario, provided it is just and convenient.

The court also upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to accept an undertaking as to damages from a foreign corporate non-party.