P.A. Neena Gupta

The plaintiff, Amit Arora, was terminated for cause by ICICI Bank of Canada after 15 years of employment.

The Bank alleged breaches of duties of good faith and loyalty, including sharing confidential information with competitors (BMO and RBC), planning to compete with the Bank by incorporating a company (BrainTree) with subordinates, and dishonesty during the internal investigation.

The court found that Arora was not a fiduciary but breached his common law and contractual duties by sharing proprietary documents, involving subordinates in competitive plans, and being untruthful during the investigation.

The court concluded that the cumulative effect of these serious breaches warranted summary dismissal, as they fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

The plaintiff's claims for wrongful dismissal, moral damages, and bonus/ESOP benefits were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal and cross-appeal concerning damages for conversion of a "book of business" in the transportation insurance industry.

The trial judge had found conversion of one book (TRIP book) but not another (Kimberly book), and did not fully address other causes of action like breach of contract, breach of confidence, and fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conversion analysis was flawed, particularly regarding the nature of intangible property and the sufficiency of findings.

It also held that the trial judge erred by not separately addressing the other pleaded causes of action.

Consequently, the Court allowed both the appeal and cross-appeal, set aside the trial decision, and ordered a new trial on all causes of action.

The defendants, having successfully obtained a dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on limitation grounds, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the issues were not complex and that allegations of fraud were not adjudicated.

The court considered the complexity of the original claim, the significant amount claimed, the plaintiffs' pursuit of a statute-barred action despite early notice, and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors, the court found that the plaintiffs' conduct warranted an award of costs higher than partial indemnity.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs had previously commenced an action in 2011 based on the same core facts, which was dismissed as abandoned.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was postponed due to fraudulent concealment, claiming they only discovered confirming evidence in 2013.

The court found the 2011 claim provided irrefutable evidence that the plaintiffs had discovered their claim by July 2011.

The court rejected the fraudulent concealment argument, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed interlocutory injunction application.

The defendants, who successfully resisted the injunction, sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's alleged misconduct and the impact on their livelihoods.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity or costs in the cause, and sought discounts.

The court determined that costs should be fixed and paid forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, applying a 10% reduction for work that would benefit the overall litigation.

Substantial indemnity was denied as the plaintiff had a serious issue to be tried and the alleged misconduct did not meet the threshold for elevated costs.

The plaintiff, Pioneering Technology Corp. (PTC), sought an interlocutory injunction against former employees and a contractor (Laird Comber, Wayne Zu, and Steph Cooper) to prevent them from using confidential information and developing a competing business venture.

PTC alleged breach of contract, fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and breach of confidence, stemming from the defendants' undisclosed plans to collaborate with a Chinese supplier (Donghai) to distribute a product (2BGT) in North America, potentially involving PTC.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from *RJR MacDonald v. Canada*.

While a serious issue to be tried was found regarding fiduciary duties and corporate opportunity, the court determined that PTC failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any potential damages from a competing venture could be quantified, and there was no evidence of imminent harm or disclosure of confidential information.

The balance of convenience also did not favour granting the injunction, given the preliminary stage of the defendants' plans and Donghai's prior decision not to contract with PTC for the 2BGT.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

This decision re-evaluates a costs award following a successful appeal by the defendant that significantly reduced the plaintiff's damages in a wrongful dismissal case.

The defendant argued that their earlier offer to settle, which included "statutory deductions" without specificity, should trigger Rule 49 cost consequences as the plaintiff's final recovery was less than the offer.

The court found the offer too ambiguous to meet Rule 49's strictures.

It also dismissed arguments regarding fresh evidence of a counsel agreement and the application of Simplified Procedure rules due to the action's commencement date.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court determined that despite the plaintiff's limited success on major claims, the overall results were mixed, leading to an order that each party bear their own costs.

An appeal and cross-appeal from a wrongful dismissal judgment.

The trial judge found the appellant, an institutional equity salesperson, was constructively dismissed and awarded 11 months' pay in lieu of notice totalling $240,313.79 (net $137,055.54), including base salary, performance bonus, and shareholders' bonus.

The appellant appealed the calculation of her performance bonus; the respondent cross-appealed on mitigation, notice period, shareholders' bonus entitlement, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-appeal in part, finding the appellant was not entitled to shareholders' bonus damages as her shares were redeemed upon termination of employment.

The net damages award was reduced to $57,262.96, and costs were remitted to the trial judge for recalculation.

Appeal from a trial judgment dismissing a negligent misrepresentation claim.

The appellants, a manufacturer of assembly lines, contracted to supply equipment to a German company.

When the purchaser transferred the contract to its Canadian subsidiary, the appellants requested assurances from the parent company.

The respondents provided a letter from their bank confirming project financing and the parent company's guarantee.

When the project failed due to industry collapse, the appellants sued for negligent misrepresentation, claiming the letter was misleading because it failed to disclose that the bank's financing was conditional.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the representation was true and not misleading, and that the appellants had not reasonably relied on it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error and no denial of procedural fairness.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim.

The court considered whether the successful defendants, Sparkasse Siegen and Thomas Magnete GmbH, should receive costs on a higher scale due to settlement offers, and whether costs should be awarded against a non-party, Mr. Mellema.

The court declined to award higher scale costs, finding the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous and their refusal to accept settlement offers was not unreasonable.

It also declined to award costs against Mr. Mellema personally, noting the defendants' awareness of his involvement and their prior opportunities to seek increased security for costs or provide notice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both defendants.

The plaintiffs, suppliers of automated assembly lines, sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract following the cancellation of a major auto sector project.

The plaintiffs alleged they relied on a comfort letter from the defendants regarding project financing and that a subsequent oral agreement was made for the defendants to assume the debt.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the comfort letter was not misleading and reliance on it was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' own deceptive request.

The court also found no evidence of the alleged oral agreement and held that any such claim would be barred by the Limitations Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants were awarded costs for the motion in the amount of $15,000 against one respondent and $10,000 against the other.

The appellants were also awarded costs for the appeal in the amount of $12,000 against each respondent, for a total costs award of $49,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff RCI entered into an agreement to manufacture and install assembly lines for TMG in Ontario.

TMG later substituted its subsidiary TMC as the purchaser, allegedly providing assurances alongside its bank, Sparkasse, that they would guarantee payment.

When TMC failed to pay, RCI sued TMG and Sparkasse in Ontario for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

The motion judge stayed the action, finding no jurisdiction simpliciter and that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on the tort and contract occurring in Ontario, the forum selection clauses did not apply to the guarantee claims, and the defendants failed to show Germany was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to add two parties and a new oppression remedy to their statement of claim in a dispute over a real estate joint venture.

The motion judge had dismissed the amendments on the basis that the appellants failed to produce evidence supporting the allegations against the proposed parties.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that on a motion to amend pleadings, the facts pleaded must be taken as true and provable, and the court should not look beyond the pleadings to require evidentiary proof at that stage.

The proposed amendments adequately disclosed causes of action for conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and oppression.

The defendants moved to dismiss or permanently stay an Ontario action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Germany was the appropriate forum.

The dispute arose from agreements relating to the manufacture of automotive components and included forum selection clauses designating Germany as the place of jurisdiction and German law as governing law.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish jurisdiction simpliciter because no real and substantial connection to Ontario was demonstrated.

The court further found that the plaintiffs failed to show strong cause to depart from the contractual forum selection clauses.

Applying forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded that Germany was the more appropriate forum.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The motion judge had found that the proposed amendments added new causes of action and were statute-barred, giving rise to a presumption of prejudice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the amendments did not add new material facts but simply claimed additional or alternative forms of relief based on the facts already pleaded.

As there was no evidence of non-compensable prejudice, the amendments were permitted.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against a black employee by requiring him to attend anger management counselling after a workplace dispute.

The employer argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by relying on a prior decision about anti-black racism without notice, and that the discrimination finding was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal could take notice of accepted social facts about racism without breaching procedural fairness.

The majority further held that the Tribunal's inference of racial stereotyping was rationally supported by the evidence, given the employer's rare and highly discretionary use of anger management referrals.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to intervene in an ongoing Ontario Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding the implementation of remedial orders for workplace discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent unusual circumstances.

The court found no such circumstances, noting the applicants' interests were aligned with the Ministry, which was already a party, and emphasizing the chaotic consequences of granting party standing to every non-party whose conduct is raised in evidence.

The appellants, minority shareholders in Colio Wines of Canada Ltd., appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy and the appointment of an inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The appellants alleged that a 1992 amalgamation unfairly valued their shares at one cent each.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the appellants failed to provide cogent evidence that oppressive conduct appeared to have occurred, as required by s. 161(2) of the Act.

The court confirmed that mere suspicion or a report suggesting oppression 'may have been' present is insufficient to warrant the appointment of an inspector.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant landlords appealed a Board of Inquiry decision finding that their use of rent-to-income ratios to screen prospective tenants constituted constructive discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the sole use of such criteria disproportionately excluded protected groups and was not a bona fide requirement.

However, the Court amended the Board's forward-looking prohibition against using income criteria, noting that recent amendments to the Code and O. Reg. 290/98 now expressly permit landlords to use income information in specific ways.