Corporate/Commercial Law - ONCA

The appellants purchased a swine farm from the respondent but suffered a loss when they could not secure a supply of pigs due to adverse market conditions.

They appealed the trial judge's dismissal of their claim for damages, arguing breach of good faith, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract because the barn was empty on closing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had waived a condition regarding the supply of pigs and thereby assumed the risk of market changes.

The court also found no negligent misrepresentation due to an entire agreement clause and the appellants' direct discussions with the supplier, and concluded the contract did not require pigs to be in the barn on closing.

The appellant homeowner appealed an order confirming a master's report that allowed the respondent contractor's action for unpaid renovation work and dismissed the appellant's counterclaim.

The appellant argued the master failed to address allegations of post-contractual misrepresentations and breach of the duty of honest performance, and that the motion judge erred in finding the entire agreement clause excluded these claims.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the entire agreement clause could not exclude the duty of honesty, but dismissed the appeal because the master's factual findings—that the parties had agreed to the charges for extra work—disposed of the factual underpinnings of the appellant's claims.

The appellant clinic and respondent chiropractor had a business arrangement that broke down over a fee-splitting dispute.

The respondent abruptly left the clinic, leading to claims and counterclaims.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent for loss of income.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by granting summary judgment in the face of conflicting evidence without explaining how the conflict was resolved or deploying the fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04.

The judgment was set aside and the parties were left to pursue their claims.

The appellant, a small distillery, challenged the LCBO's 139.7% mark-up on spirits sold at its on-site retail store, arguing it was an unconstitutional tax under sections 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application judge dismissed the challenge, finding the mark-up was a proprietary charge and not a tax, and that the appellant had voluntarily agreed to it by contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the LCBO, as the owner of the spirits under the contract, was exercising its private law rights to determine prices in a commercial context.

The appellant brought an action for unpaid commissions against several defendants, including the respondent.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the respondent, finding no agreement, no basis to disregard separate legal personalities, no partnership, and no unjust enrichment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred regarding privity of contract, equitable assignments, partnership, and credibility assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's own testimony contradicted the privity argument, the equitable assignment issue was not raised below, and the motion judge correctly applied the Partnerships Act.

The appellants, a syndicate of lenders, sued the respondent auditors for negligent and reckless misrepresentation after advancing funds to a company based on audited financial statements that failed to disclose a massive accounting fraud.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the lenders' negligence claim, finding that the spectre of indeterminate liability negated the auditors' prima facie duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that partial summary judgment was inadvisable in the context of the litigation as a whole due to the real risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings at the upcoming trial on the remaining claims.

The appellant sought to certify a global class action against an Ontario accounting firm for auditor's negligence regarding a clean audit report used in a US private placement.

The motion judge denied certification, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario for the foreign investors and concluding that joinder was preferable to a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by mischaracterizing the claim as being about the foreign financing rather than the Ontario-based audit, and by failing to properly conduct the comparative access to justice analysis required for the preferable procedure criterion.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent over $2.2 million for unpaid commercial leases of forestry equipment.

The appellants argued the respondent was not the proper assignee, disputed the amount owing, and claimed equipment malfunctions excused payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the respondent was the assignee, the debt calculation was correct, and broad exclusion clauses in the leases precluded the equipment malfunction defence.

The court also quashed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding a stay of execution for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party sought to lift a stay of proceedings previously granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Following the stay, the moving party's attempt to pursue a class action in the United States for pre-explosion misrepresentations was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the responding party conceded the claim was governed by Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal found these new developments constituted facts arising after the order that justified lifting the stay to avoid an injustice, allowing the moving party to proceed with the claim in Ontario.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached an oral contract to pay a 5% commission on balloon sales to a retail chain.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and improperly relied on discovery evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the record and the improper admission of discovery evidence caused no substantial wrong.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding a pre-trial costs order was allowed, as the trial judge lacked authority to alter the motion judge's order.

The appellant appealed a decision awarding damages to the respondents for breach of a lease agreement and improper sale of a vehicle under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The application judge had found the notice of sale deficient, improperly served, and waived, and that the sale was not commercially reasonable.

The Court of Appeal found the application judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in law.

The notice complied with the Act, was properly served by registered mail, and was not waived by an incomplete compromise agreement.

Furthermore, the appellant had no obligation to repair the vehicle before sale, and the sale price was commercially reasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the application dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a motion judge's decision deducting an amount from its claimed relief for a defaulting tenant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the landlord provided unchallenged evidence of hiring a commercial real estate agent to re-let the premises, thereby taking reasonable steps to mitigate its loss.

The judgment was varied to award the full amount claimed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding the distribution of funds following the breakdown of a business relationship involving a proposed land development.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings and distribution of funds.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence regarding a water heater purchase, as it would not have changed the result.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a judgment imposing constructive trusts over certain properties, arguing the matter was too complex for a motion and that the motion judge erred in accepting the Inspector's tracing methodology.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the legal principles of constructive trust based on the appellants' fraud and misappropriation of funds, and properly appreciated the extensive evidentiary record.

The receiver of the appellant appealed a motion judge's interpretation of an accounts receivable insurance policy with the respondent insurer.

The motion judge found that buyers' claims for set-off against amounts owing to the appellant constituted a 'dispute' under clause 7 of the policy, which deferred the insurer's liability to pay claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no ambiguity in the clause and confirming that a dispute is not restricted to claims arising out of the unpaid shipment of goods.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision ordering the return of US $250,000 held in trust by the respondent law firm to the respondent client.

The appellant argued the funds were impressed with a trust in its favour and that the application judge erred in denying an adjournment to cross-examine a deponent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a trust or escrow agreement and concluding the appellant had ample opportunity to cross-examine prior to the hearing but made a tactical decision not to do so.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that found no arguable issue for trial regarding its claims for equitable and legal set off.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the equitable set off claims lacked the requisite close connection, and the legal set off claims were either for unliquidated damages or factually complex amounts not readily ascertainable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing an international arbitration award, arguing it was denied procedural fairness when the application proceeded in its absence.

The appellant had previously terminated its solicitors' retainer and indicated an intent to follow different channels.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding no adequate record to support the procedural fairness claim.

The court noted that the appropriate procedure to raise the issue is a motion to set aside the order under Rule 38.11 in the Superior Court.

The appellants, trustees of a pension fund, sought leave under the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a $4 billion class action against Kinross Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations regarding two gold mines.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable possibility of success for the statutory claims due to flawed expert evidence, and consequently denied certification for the common law claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the motion judge's assessment of the leave test and concluding that a class action was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims due to the need for individualized inquiries into reliance.

The appellant tenant appealed a ruling that a commercial lease and its right of first refusal were properly terminated by the respondent landlord.

The landlord had unconditionally accepted a third-party offer to purchase the leased premises without first notifying the tenant or allowing it to match the offer, and then purported to terminate the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the landlord was obliged to inform the tenant of the offer and afford it an opportunity to match before unconditionally accepting the third-party offer.

The court ordered the landlord to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with the tenant on the same terms.