Patricia Anne Virc

This is a complex oppression and wrongful dismissal matter involving a closely held family company.

The plaintiff, an estranged son-in-law employed for 27 years, was terminated following discovery of a fraudulent invoicing scheme through which he misappropriated over $500,000 from the family businesses.

The plaintiff claims oppression and wrongful dismissal, while the defendants counterclaim for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated for cause due to the fraudulent scheme, was not oppressed, and breached his fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff is liable for damages totaling approximately $571,452.25 plus disgorgement of profits.

The court ordered a buyout of the plaintiff's 50% interest in the operating company at a price to be determined by a jointly retained neutral valuator, but dismissed claims for buyout of the real estate holding companies and oppression remedies.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned investment property.

The Applicant opposed the sale, arguing it was malicious, vexatious, and oppressive, and that she wished to retain the property as an income source given the Respondent's early retirement.

The court found that a joint tenant has a prima facie right to partition or sale under the Partition Act, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient reason to deny the sale, as it was an inevitable outcome at trial and not a matrimonial home.

The motion for sale was granted, with the Applicant's share of net proceeds to be released and the Respondent's share held in trust.

The court also addressed costs and expressed concerns about the ongoing litigation and resource imbalance between the parties.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for reunification therapy between herself and the parties' 15-year-old daughter, C, with the respondent covering expenses.

The court, applying the five-factor test from Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, dismissed the motion.

The judge found no compelling expert evidence to support the therapy, noted the interim stage of the proceedings, and emphasized C's views as a mature minor, who was not willing to voluntarily participate at this time.

The court concluded that forcing reunification therapy would not be in C's best interests and preferred an organic approach to mending the relationship.

This endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses a request for directions regarding its prior decision.

The respondent sought clarification, arguing the previous decision might have inadvertently set aside parts of the application judge's order that were not appealed or were abandoned.

The court clarified that its decision to set aside the application judge's order was due to identified errors affecting lien rights and PPSA registration.

It affirmed that the appellants (respondents in this endorsement) did not abandon any relief sought in their notice of appeal and factum, including payment for storage/rental costs intertwined with repairs.

The court confirmed the appellants' possessory lien over the aircraft, encompassing both repair and storage/rental costs, and remitted these intertwined issues to the Superior Court for determination.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously allowed the appeal, set aside the application judge’s order, and remitted certain issues for trial, declaring that the appellants had a possessory lien.

The appellants, having prevailed on the appeal and related motions, were awarded all-inclusive costs for the appeal, a panel motion, three pre-appeal motions, and the original application, totaling $143,977.79.

The Applicant sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and distribution of its contents.

The Respondent opposed the sale and filed a cross-motion to amend his pleadings to include a claim for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court affirmed the Applicant's prima facie right to sale, finding that the Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case for a competing interest, such as exclusive possession, under the Family Law Act.

The Respondent's arguments regarding his health, financial vulnerability, and the stability of an adult child were not persuasive enough to defeat the sale.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and allowed the Respondent to amend his pleadings, but with costs payable to the Applicant.

The appellants appealed an order vacating their possessory lien on an aircraft under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The application judge had erred by vacating the lien without fully determining whether the repair work was authorized and if any amounts were owing, despite acknowledging that litigation on these issues was possible.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge failed to make necessary findings and improperly applied the RSLA.

The appeal was allowed, the original order set aside, and the appellants' possessory lien was declared to exist until further court order, with the issues of authorization and amounts owing remitted to trial.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's answer, prevent further court orders, obtain directions regarding discovery evidence use between related civil and family proceedings, and appoint an expert to value the respondent's corporate shares and income.

The respondent cross-moved to add family members as parties and compel their disclosure/questioning, and for general disclosure from the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests to strike pleadings and prevent further orders, and the respondent's requests to add parties and compel non-party disclosure.

The court granted, by consent, the use of civil discovery evidence in the family case, ordered an expert income report for the respondent, and ordered specific financial disclosure from the applicant.

Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. (JGC) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract and dependent contractor claims against Recipe Unlimited Corporation (Cara).

JGC alleged Cara breached a 2006 consulting agreement, including a stock option provision, and failed to provide reasonable notice upon termination.

The motion judge found JGC waived an auto-renewal clause, terminating the agreement in 2010, and that no other written agreement replaced it.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in finding a unilateral waiver for no consideration and that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the terms governing the parties' relationship after 2008, given the uncertainty in the record and the parties' conduct.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for trial.

The appellant, Gerard Lee, former CEO of Lalu Canada Inc., appealed the dismissal of his application for advance funding of legal costs to defend a fraud action.

The application judge denied funding, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud against Lee regarding "acquisition fees" he had received.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the consulting agreement and assessment of evidence regarding concealment.

The court also affirmed the application judge's application of the "strong prima facie case" test for denying advance funding, finding it commensurate with the stringent standard required.

The defendant, Recipe Unlimited Corporation (Cara), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd.'s (JGC), claims for breach of contract and common law reasonable notice.

The court found that JGC had waived the automatic renewal clause of its consulting agreement with Cara, causing the agreement to terminate.

The court also determined that JGC was not a dependent contractor, primarily due to its admission of no financial dependency on Cara and the significant other business interests of its principal, Jack Ganz.

Consequently, JGC's claims for breach of contract and common law reasonable notice were dismissed.

A minor claim regarding a projector and inventory was also dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The appellants appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their motion for a declaration that they were entitled to indemnification for legal fees and expenses under a consulting agreement.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order was interlocutory rather than final because it did not address the substantive merits of whether the consulting agreement required advance payment of legal fees or whether there had been a breach.

The court quashed the appeal and noted that the appellants could seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court or bring a separate application for interpretation of the agreement.

The corporate plaintiff, 2505805 Ontario Inc. (the "Consultant"), brought a motion to enforce a contractual indemnification provision in a consulting agreement, seeking advance payment of legal fees.

The defendants argued the motion was an improper attempt at partial summary judgment and that corporate indemnity statutes (CBCA/OBCA) applied, requiring the consultant to have acted honestly and in good faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the relief sought constituted partial summary judgment on issues central to the main action, which is generally discouraged by the Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, the court held that the corporate indemnity statutes did not apply because the Consultant was a corporation, not an individual officer or director, and therefore not subject to those specific statutory provisions.

The plaintiff, Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. (JGC), brought a motion for an order compelling the defendant, Recipe Unlimited Corporation, to produce additional documents for inspection under Rules 30.06 and 30.08.

The defendant resisted, arguing that the plaintiff was attempting to vary a prior scheduling order, that issue estoppel applied, that sufficient discovery had already occurred, and that the requests were speculative and irrelevant, particularly in the context of a pending summary judgment motion.

The Master found jurisdiction to hear the motion and that issue estoppel did not apply.

However, the Master largely denied the plaintiff's specific requests for further production, concluding that the plaintiff had already received substantial discovery and that many of the requested documents were not relevant or proportionate to the pending summary judgment motion, or that the plaintiff had not provided convincing evidence of their existence or necessity.

Costs were ordered to be "in the cause."

The appellants, owners of a residential property in Caledon, Ontario, appealed a decision dismissing their application against the Ontario Heritage Trust and a local resident.

The appellants' property is accessible only via a 1 km driveway through parkland owned by the OHT, over which they hold an easement for ingress and egress.

The appellants claimed the easement granted them exclusive use of the driveway and sought to prevent public access by hikers using trails on the OHT property.

The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the deed of easement did not grant exclusive use, that public use by hikers did not substantially interfere with the appellants' easement rights, and that an injunction against the publication of a hiking guide was not warranted.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to plead, in the alternative, breach of the defendant's obligation to give reasonable notice of termination of a consulting agreement, without alleging new facts.

The defendant opposed, arguing it raised a statute-barred new cause of action or lacked particulars.

The court granted leave to amend, finding it was an alternative theory of damages based on existing facts, not a new cause of action, and that sufficient material facts were pleaded.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs for the amendment.

The defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the action for non-compliance with a costs order was denied, but its motion to strike certain evidence was granted, with $1,000 costs awarded for that portion.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 20, 2017.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the sum of $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions regarding customer information and certain refusals during discovery.

The plaintiff cross-moved to compel the personal defendants to answer questions refused at their examinations for discovery.

The court ordered the plaintiff to disclose redacted customer names and contact information, subject to strict confidentiality protocols.

The court refused to compel the plaintiff to interview a third-party business advisor or disclose information related to employee witness statements, citing litigation privilege.

On the cross-motion, the court found questions regarding the defendants' rationale for selling the business irrelevant to the alleged sabotage and properly refused.

Most refusals on both sides were upheld.

The applicants sought a declaration of exclusive use over a right-of-way (ROW) connected to their property and permanent injunctions against the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) and Nicola Ross.

The OHT, as the servient tenement owner, permitted public access to the ROW, which also served as access to the Bruce Trail.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the easement did not grant exclusive use to the applicants and that there was no substantial interference with their rights.

The court also found the applicants lacked "clean hands" due to misleading evidence and dismissed the injunction claim against Ms. Ross, noting her statements were consistent with OHT's position and not made with malice.