Peter M. Callahan

Shareholders and a former director brought a motion seeking to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for alleged non-disclosure, or alternatively compelling additional corporate and financial production.

The underlying action alleged that the defendants, as directors, diverted a corporate opportunity to another entity and caused the insolvency of the corporation.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure and determined that extensive corporate, technical, contractual, and financial records had already been produced.

The requested additional production was found to be overly broad and unsupported by evidence establishing relevance to issues in dispute.

The motion for additional disclosure was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to an expedited trial.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for a declaration that the respondent lawyer breached the deemed undertaking rule by sharing information about a writ against the appellant with another respondent.

The application judge found no breach because the assignment of the writ occurred before the correspondence disclosing the writ and settlement negotiations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings.

The court declined to award costs, noting that the respondent lawyer should not have appeared as counsel since he was a named respondent and his conduct was central to the case.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support, arguing the trial judge erred by not imputing income to the respondent for the period between February 2008 and August 2009.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the respondent had failed to pursue available income sources such as CPP, long-term disability, and RRSP withdrawals during that time.

The Court imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the respondent for that period and ordered a recalculation of support.

The appeal regarding the tax treatment of the spousal support set-off was dismissed.

The parties each brought motions to change prior final family law orders relating to parenting time and child support.

One party sought expanded access and adjustments to the dispute resolution process concerning parenting arrangements, while the other sought variation of child support and extensive financial disclosure alleging undisclosed corporate interests and higher income.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed disclosure obligations, examination scheduling, and mediation steps, and established a detailed procedural timetable for production, questioning, and the hearing of both motions.

The court also directed the parties to pursue mediation and potential counseling with a child psychiatrist and made interim directions regarding the children's extracurricular activities.

Costs of the conference were reserved.

The parties each brought motions to change prior final family law orders relating to parenting time and child support.

One party sought expanded access and adjustments to the dispute resolution process concerning parenting arrangements, while the other sought variation of child support and extensive financial disclosure alleging undisclosed corporate interests and higher income.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed disclosure obligations, examination scheduling, and mediation steps, and established a detailed procedural timetable for production, questioning, and the hearing of both motions.

The court also directed the parties to pursue mediation and potential counseling with a child psychiatrist and made interim directions regarding the children's extracurricular activities.

Costs of the conference were reserved.

Following a motion concerning whether an accepted settlement offer constituted an enforceable settlement in estate litigation, the court had previously determined that a binding settlement existed.

The estate trustee successfully resisted the beneficiary’s motion.

On the subsequent costs endorsement, the court considered the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the trustee sought substantial indemnity costs, the court held that the circumstances did not justify such an award, particularly in the absence of a Rule 49 offer.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the estate trustee, subject to reductions reflecting excessive time entries and the trustee’s late disclosure of certain estate assets.

In an estate dispute between brothers arising from a contested passing of accounts, the estate trustee moved under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement based on the beneficiary’s offer to settle.

The court considered whether the offer remained open for acceptance and whether enforcement would create an injustice.

It held that the hearing of the application had not commenced on earlier procedural attendances and that the offer, which had not been withdrawn in writing, remained open when accepted.

Applying contract principles and appellate guidance on enforcing settlements, the court found the offer clear and unequivocal and rejected arguments that a mistaken assumption about its expiry or incomplete disclosure justified non‑enforcement.

The court concluded there was a binding settlement and granted judgment enforcing the accepted offer.

The applicant mother, who had sole custody of the child, sought to relocate to New Jersey to live with her new husband.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought custody.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's role as primary caregiver and the bona fide nature of the relocation.

The court permitted the move, varied the access schedule to provide the father with less frequent but longer visits, and ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support without imputing income to the mother for her temporary leave of absence.

Following an uncontested family law trial after the applicant’s pleadings were struck for failure to comply with disclosure orders, the court determined issues of divorce, child support arrears, spousal support arrears, ongoing spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the applicant had failed to provide reliable financial disclosure and had attempted to misrepresent his income to avoid support obligations.

Income was imputed to the applicant at $100,000 annually.

The respondent, suffering from serious ongoing medical issues that limited her ability to work, was awarded retroactive child and spousal support, ongoing spousal support, equalization of property, and insurance-related payments.

The defendants brought a motion seeking further particulars of allegations in a statement of claim relating to alleged improper transactions between related corporate entities.

The plaintiff had already responded that the allegations concerned all relevant transactions, which the defendants argued improperly expanded disclosure beyond the applicable limitation period.

The court held that the adequacy of particulars was the only issue on the motion and that limitation issues relating to document production should be addressed in a separate motion if necessary.

The responses provided were found to be adequate and the defendants were not entitled to further particulars.

The court also criticized the defendants’ procedural conduct, including filing a confusing and unscheduled Rule 21 motion and mishandling scheduling and correspondence, which unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

Following a trial of issues under section 81 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act regarding competing claims to property, the successful claimant sought costs against the unsuccessful claimant, and the unsuccessful claimant sought costs against the Trustee.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful claimant, finding no litigation conduct warranting elevated costs.

The unsuccessful claimant's request for costs against the Trustee was denied because its own contradictory and incomplete positions necessitated the Trustee seeking the court's directions.

The appellants appealed an order regarding rental arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that any offset or deduction of rental arrears must be addressed in the related mortgage action, potentially requiring the addition of a party to that action.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST, payable forthwith by the respondents to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order removing him as estate trustee and appointing the deceased's daughter in his place.

The motion judge found the appellant demonstrated indifference towards the beneficiaries, was incompetent in his administration, and failed to protect the estate's principal asset.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the relevant principles and his findings were supported by the record.

Costs were awarded against the appellant personally.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting there was no legal relationship between the appellant and the respondent contractor to support a claim.

Furthermore, the respondent municipality was statutorily authorized to add the contractor's bill to the appellant's tax bill, and the appellant failed to provide more than a bald statement to challenge the amount.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for an assault that occurred during a recreational hockey game.

The trial judge found that the appellant deliberately punched the respondent in the face after the referee had stopped play, causing dental injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent did not assume the risk of a deliberate, unprovoked attack and that the liability waiver did not bar recovery.

The court also upheld the award of special damages for future dental work, finding the respondent's dentist was qualified to provide opinion evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision varying support orders.

The trial judge found that a decrease in the father's income constituted a material change in circumstances and adapted the parties' agreement to reflect this decrease while maintaining its spirit.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the result and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $8,200.

The appellants appealed a Case Management Master's decision granting summary judgment for $80,000 owing on a promissory note related to the purchase of a business.

The appellants argued that the individual signatories received no consideration and claimed a right of set-off due to a separate action for breach of a non-competition agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Master correctly found the individual defendants liable as guarantors and that equitable set-off is not available against a promissory note.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting oppression remedies to the respondents, arguing there was no factual basis for the finding of oppression.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of oppression, which included refusing to provide audited financial statements, calling shareholder meetings on short notice, and withholding monies for snowmobiles.

However, the court varied the judgment to remove the individual appellant's joint and several liability for the snowmobile payment, as no such relief was sought against him personally.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, including challenges to the 12% interest rate and the costs award.