Patrice Côté

The plaintiff commenced an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression remedies arising from his ouster as director and CEO of the defendant corporation.

The defendants filed a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, claiming the plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement.

The defendants failed to properly advance their motion, initially abandoning it for six weeks, then repackaging it as a rule 21 motion.

After multiple procedural disputes, case conferences, and a motion for leave to appeal a case conference endorsement, the defendants failed to file their motion confirmation form by the required deadline.

The motion was deemed abandoned under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, finding the defendants engaged in improper delaying tactics throughout the nine-month proceeding.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff, James Pushie, in a property dispute with Carmela Guidarelli following the breakdown of their romantic and business relationship.

The court considers the admissibility of evidence previously ruled inadmissible, the scope of evidence at trial, the amendment of pleadings, and ongoing disclosure obligations.

The court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings, clarifies that evidence previously excluded at the application stage may be tendered at trial subject to relevance and admissibility, and sets out procedural directions for the conduct of the trial.

The defendant/father moved for costs after the plaintiff/mother discontinued her civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.

The civil action was launched after the mother filed a motion to change in family court seeking to relocate with the child, which the father opposed.

The court found the civil action unnecessary and duplicative, as the claim for damages should have been made within the family law proceeding.

Despite the mother's claims of being threatened and impecunious, the court found no supporting evidence for these assertions.

The father's Bill of Costs was deemed reasonable.

The court ordered the mother to pay $4000 in costs to the father.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim parenting schedule to increase his overnight parenting time with the parties' 20-month-old twins and to permit him to enroll them in daycare.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing severe health concerns for one of the twins who was immunocompromised following a lengthy hospitalization for meningoencephalitis.

The court dismissed the father's primary requests, finding no compelling reason to change the status quo and noting that daycare posed an unacceptable health risk at this time.

The court ordered an alternative schedule proposed by the mother and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with corporate disclosure obligations.

The court considered the factors for extending time under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the delay was short, the court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit and appeared to be a collateral attack on a prior consent order.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs recovered $87,917 on a $15 million claim for breach of a royalty agreement, the court determined costs and interest.

The defendants had made a $400,000 offer to settle just prior to trial.

The court found the plaintiffs were successful on only one issue and failed to accept a reasonable offer.

Applying Rule 49.13, the court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants partial indemnity costs thereafter.

This resulted in a net costs award of $177,905.99 payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the Courts of Justice Act rate.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Partition Act for the sale of a property registered solely in the respondent's name.

The application judge had dismissed the claim, finding on a paper record that the funds advanced by the appellant were a loan, not an investment giving rise to a trust interest.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in law by assessing credibility on material facts in dispute without directing a trial to hear viva voce evidence.

The judgment was set aside and a trial of the whole application was ordered.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of three overlapping actions brought under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The actions arose from a family dispute concerning the appellant's exclusion from his grandfather's will and alleged undue influence and fraudulent conduct by family members and lawyers.

The motion judge dismissed the actions as frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the motion judge failed to make explicit findings that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process; (2) the harassment and defamation claims were supported by the pleadings; and (3) the motion judge failed to explain why the statements of claim could not be amended.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds of appeal and upheld the dismissals.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship of the appellant’s children in child protection proceedings.

The appellant alleged violations of Charter mobility rights arising from the disclosure of information by a child protection authority to authorities in the Netherlands after the family relocated there.

The court held that the disclosure was made to assist foreign authorities in determining the children’s best interests and did not breach the appellant’s Charter rights.

The court also addressed complaints about reliance on hearsay evidence and comments by the motion judge regarding the appellant’s request for a bilingual proceeding.

Although the appeal court found the motion judge erred in questioning the appellant’s French language ability, the appeal was dismissed as moot and without merit.

On a motion in a family property dispute, the moving plaintiff sought leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation over farm property allegedly transferred through a quitclaim deed for inadequate consideration and in breach of fiduciary obligations.

The court found there were numerous triable issues concerning the plaintiffs' claimed interest in the land, the surrounding transfers, mortgages, and the role of family members and their solicitor.

Although there had been delay and material non-disclosure in earlier proceedings, the court held that a CPL was still appropriate in light of the unresolved issues and the threatened sale.

To balance the pending arm's-length sale, the court ordered that the CPL could be vacated if $1,500,000 was paid into court on closing.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

The plaintiffs, two sisters, sued their third sister and her family members over the transfer of a family farm property.

The plaintiffs alleged that the property was transferred for less than its true value and that the defendant sister breached her fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff Liliana brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after discovering a new $2,000,000 mortgage on the property and a pending agreement of purchase and sale for $6.9 million.

The court granted the CPL but ordered that it could be vacated upon payment of $1,500,000 into court if the pending sale closes, balancing the plaintiffs' claims with the defendants' right to complete the transaction.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt of court for allegedly refusing to allow the respondent access to their children.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt order due to several procedural defects, including the failure to rule on an adjournment request, denying the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, and a defective notice of motion.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants, a former condominium owner and a former management company, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against a condominium corporation and its directors for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the participating defendants, agreeing that the appellants lacked standing because they had no direct interest in the corporation's funds.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the non-participating defendants, as they had not sought summary judgment, and set aside the costs award because it was improperly made on a full indemnity basis without allowing the appellants to respond.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking their pleading under Rule 21.01(b).

The motion judge held that alleged violations of sections 4 and 42 of the Mortgages Act offered no defence to the claim for possession and the amount owing on the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit and refusing leave to amend the pleading to advance new causes of action.