Peter J. Cavanagh

This case concerns the contractual interpretation of a "Life of Mine" supply agreement for liquid sodium cyanide between Kinross (as buyer) and Cyanco (as seller).

Kinross sought a declaration that the agreement did not preclude it from sourcing solid sodium cyanide from other suppliers and converting it to liquid for its mining operations.

The court dismissed Kinross's claim, finding that such an action would conflict with the agreement's terms, which established Cyanco as the sole supplier of liquid sodium cyanide required by Kinross's mines for their operations.

The court emphasized reading the contract as a whole, giving words their ordinary meaning, and considering commercial reasonableness.

The Applicant sought recognition and enforcement of an international arbitration award against the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicant was not a legal entity and lacked standing, and moved to dismiss or stay the application.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion to amend its name in the title of proceedings.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to amend its name, finding that the use of a shorter name in the commercial agreement was permissible under Luxembourg law and that the Applicant was the correct award recipient.

The Respondent's motion to dismiss or stay was dismissed.

The court then granted the Applicant's request to recognize the arbitration award, rejecting the Respondent's arguments regarding estoppel and the arbitrator's impartiality, noting that the impartiality challenge had already been unsuccessfully litigated before the arbitration administrator.

The plaintiff, Coffee Time (2015) Corporation, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale after being granted partial summary judgment against the defendants for franchise fees, interest, and rent arrears.

The court, however, exercised its discretion under Rule 57.01 and 57.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to deny the plaintiff any costs.

This decision was based on the plaintiff's conduct, specifically their failure to properly calculate rent arrears and account for a rent deposit, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

Furthermore, the total amount recovered by the plaintiff fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, leading the judge to conclude the action should have been brought there.

The defendants moved to dismiss a 2009 action for delay and, alternatively, for security for costs.

The court found the delay of 13 years to be inordinate and inexcusable, primarily due to the plaintiff Lawrence Mark Dale's inactivity and failure to provide explanations or respond to the motion.

A presumption of prejudice to the defendants arose, which the plaintiff failed to rebut, particularly given the nature of the conspiracy claims requiring witness recollection.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The court also addressed the security for costs motion, noting that if the action had not been dismissed, Mr. Dale would have been ordered to post $400,000 in security for costs to TRREB due to an outstanding costs order against him in another proceeding.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) appealed an Associate Justice's decision regarding refusals motions during discovery in two related actions.

The TTC alleged conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment against Ronald Howard Spaeth, Specbilt Enterprises Inc., and Michael Hickey, claiming they manipulated procurement processes and overcharged for parts.

Mr. Hickey also sued TTC for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal concerned the production of financial records, bank records, and documents related to the relationship between Mr. Spaeth and Prostuff Group.

The court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Associate Justice erred in principle by overly limiting the scope of relevant documents for production, particularly regarding financial records and supplier transactions, and the relationship between Mr. Spaeth and Prostuff Group, but upheld the refusal for general payroll records.

The plaintiff, Coffee Time (2015) Corporation, sought summary judgment against the defendants, 1685247 Ontario Limited and Khursheed A. Choudhry, for unpaid franchise fees and rent arrears under a franchise agreement and sublease.

The defendants raised several defenses, including limitation periods, the effectiveness of the assignment of the agreements to the plaintiff, disputes over the calculation of fees and rent, a claim for accelerated rent, and credit for abandoned property.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding the assignment effective as an equitable assignment, adjusting the calculation of rent arrears based on a reduced minimum rent, denying the claim for accelerated rent as the tenancy was month-to-month, and denying credit for abandoned property due to insufficient evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded specific amounts for franchise fees and rent arrears, with interest on franchise fees.

The Plaintiffs (Metro 1 Development Corporation Ltd. and its subtenants) brought a motion seeking a declaration that their lease agreement with Michael Garron Hospital had not been breached, or alternatively, for relief from forfeiture.

The dispute arose from a 'use' clause in the lease requiring the operation of a Tim Hortons restaurant, which became impossible after the termination of a separate Product Licence Agreement with TDL Group Corp. The Plaintiffs argued for an implied term in the lease to allow for a different food service and contended that the Hospital acted in bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no basis to imply a term that contradicted the express language of the lease and denying relief from forfeiture based on the Plaintiffs' conduct, the gravity of the breach, and the balance of interests.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following two applications concerning the valuation of shares in 438056 Ontario Limited and the sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The court found divided success on the share valuation issues, leading to no costs award for that portion.

However, the Estate of Silvio Marsili was successful in its discrete claim for relief under the Partition Act, entitling it to costs for that specific aspect of the application.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision on two related applications.

The Umbrio Parties were partially successful in their application, securing a net payment of $69,256.

The court rejected the Leonardelli Parties' argument that their offer to settle, though close, should shift costs under Rule 49.13, finding the difference material.

The Umbrio Parties sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs, stating that litigation complexity alone does not justify a higher scale.

For the cross-application, the court found divided success and awarded no costs.

Ultimately, the Umbrio Parties were awarded $40,000 in partial indemnity costs for their application.

This case involved cross-applications concerning the dissolution of a business partnership between two investment professionals, Rick Umbrio and Sandra Leonardelli, who co-owned Silveroak Wealth Management Inc. Disputes arose over post-closing adjustments to the purchase price for Leonardelli's shares, division of bank account balances, entitlement to commissions, and liabilities under a sublease agreement.

The court interpreted the Letter Agreement governing the transaction, applying principles of contractual interpretation to determine the correct post-closing adjustment for client assets under management (AUM) and the entitlement to commissions.

The court also addressed claims of breach of a sublease agreement.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (the "Union") brought a motion to find the City of Toronto (the "City") in contempt of an arbitrator's award, which had been filed as a court order.

The award ordered the City to reinstate a grievor with compensation.

The City reinstated the grievor but reserved the right to seek repayment of wages and benefits if its ongoing judicial review application of the award was successful.

The Union argued this reservation constituted a conditional reinstatement and contempt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the City's reservation of a future legal right, without imposing it as a condition of reinstatement, did not amount to deliberate and willful disobedience of the clear and unequivocal terms of the award.

This is a costs endorsement for three related applications concerning shareholder rights and oppression remedies in private companies (Producers Planning Group Ltd., The Benefits Group Inc., and Thornbridge Capital Inc.).

The main applications resulted in an order for the sale of businesses and assets of two companies, while claims for oppression remedies were dismissed for all parties.

The court found that all parties had substantial success as respondents in opposing the oppression claims made against them.

Due to the overlapping issues and the divided success, the court ordered no costs for any of the three applications, as the costs of successful respondents would largely offset the costs for which they would be liable as applicants in other applications.

The applicant sought costs of $10,000 on a partial indemnity scale for a motion regarding funds removed from a law firm's trust account.

The respondent sought costs of $74,940.75 on a substantial indemnity scale, claiming success on the motion.

The court found mixed success, as the applicant's motion prompted the return of $68,544.90 to the trust account, but the applicant was unsuccessful on the balance of the motion.

The court made no order as to costs for either the motion or the cross-motion.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by Money Gate Corporation, the successful responding parties sought costs. 2399029 Ontario Inc. and World Corporation Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs of $185,687.19 due to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, which Money Gate Corporation did not dispute in principle but argued were inflated.

The court reduced the claimed amount due to unnecessary work and fixed costs at $160,000 on a substantial indemnity scale.

Curah Capital Corporation was awarded its requested $12,024 on a partial indemnity scale.

Three related applications were brought concerning shareholder disputes in three closely held corporations operating as insurance brokerages and an investment holding company.

The applicants sought declarations of oppression and various remedial orders, including share buyouts and winding up.

The court dismissed all claims of oppression, finding no conduct that violated reasonable expectations.

However, the court found that the shareholders of two of the operating companies were hopelessly deadlocked and unable to work together.

Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of those two companies under the just and equitable ground of the Business Corporations Act, while dismissing the request to wind up the investment holding company.

The plaintiff brought a motion for the return of computer files and devices from its former Chief Operating Officer.

The parties agreed to appoint an Independent Solicitor to review the files for privilege.

After the Independent Solicitor's report was released, the defendants eventually returned the non-privileged files and the laptop, settling the motion.

The court determined that the plaintiff was the successful party and awarded costs, but reduced the amount claimed because the parties had acted in good faith to agree on the review process.

The costs of the Independent Solicitor were ordered to be shared equally.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for a certificate of pending litigation, both parties sought costs.

The moving parties argued they were substantially successful because the dismissal was conditional on an undertaking offered by the responding parties.

The court rejected this argument, noting the moving parties chose to proceed with the motion after the undertaking was offered.

The court awarded costs to the successful responding parties on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $86,739.59.

The plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory injunctive relief and a certificate of pending litigation was dismissed.

The defendants and non-party Project Companies sought costs.

The plaintiffs opposed an award of costs or argued for a reduced amount, but failed to provide their own costs outline.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments to deny costs or defer them to the trial judge.

Applying the principle that an attack on costs without providing one's own dockets is an 'attack in the air,' the court found the claimed amounts reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs of $65,000 to the defendants and $39,000 to the Project Companies.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was a SLAPP intended to silence their complaints about the plaintiff selling defective products and violating privacy laws.

The plaintiff's action alleged the defendants perpetrated a fraudulent scheme involving false repair receipts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet the threshold burden under s. 137.1(3) because the plaintiff's claim was grounded in fraud, not in any expressions made by the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

In a receivership proceeding, a non-party, Money Gate Corporation (MGC), brought a motion seeking a distribution of $1,159,517.66 from the proceeds of the sale of a property, claiming to be the assignee of a second mortgage.

The motion was opposed by the property owner and the holder of subsequent charges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that MGC failed to prove it used its own funds or funds raised from private investors to purchase the assignment.

Furthermore, MGC's failure to register the transfer under the Land Titles Act meant it did not have priority over subsequent registered charges.