Peter-Paul E. Du Vernet

The defendants brought a motion to strike parts of the plaintiffs' claim, specifically regarding unlawful interference with contractual relations, inducing breach of contract, breach of confidence, and conversion.

The court struck the pleadings for unlawful interference with contractual relations, granting leave to amend, on the basis that inducing breach of contract does not constitute the "unlawful means" required for the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations as per the Supreme Court's decision in A.I. Enterprises.

However, the court upheld the pleadings for inducing breach of contract, breach of confidence, and conversion, rejecting the defendants' argument that A.I. Enterprises implicitly eliminated the tort of inducing breach of contract.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses delays in the discovery process across several consolidated actions.

The primary issue identified was Mr. Behzad Pilehvar's failure to produce all relevant documents, including approximately 11,000 emails and text messages.

The court ordered Mr. Pilehvar to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents by December 19, 2023.

The endorsement also noted Mr. Pilehvar's counsel's contemplation of bringing a motion to remove himself from the record, which would impact scheduled discoveries and a planned mediation session in early spring 2024.

The court provided directions for scheduling future motions and case conferences.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

The applicant, a dissenting shareholder in a corporate amalgamation, applied to the court to fix a fair value for his shares under s. 185 of the Business Corporations Act.

The respondent argued the application was out of time, but the court exercised its discretion to extend the deadline.

The court rejected the applicant's claimed value based on an informal statement by the CEO, as well as the respondent's heavily discounted offer.

Relying on the implied share value from the amalgamation exchange ratio, the court fixed the fair value at $0.236 per share, awarding the applicant $271,400 plus partial indemnity costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike various portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim, including claims for an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, conspiracy, and breaches of the Ontario Human Rights Code, as well as references to mediation and inflammatory language.

The court granted the motion in part, striking the OBCA oppression, conspiracy, and OHRC claims (with leave to amend), a specific paragraph regarding mediation content (without leave to amend), and the term 'looting' (with leave to amend).

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The appellants retained Birkshire Group Inc. to perform home renovation work.

After the relationship deteriorated, Birkshire registered a construction lien and sued for the balance owing.

The appellants counterclaimed and sued other respondents.

At trial, the judge awarded Birkshire damages and recognized a lien.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to address evidence from two witnesses called after the close of evidence.

The trial judge had determined this evidence was material to credibility issues but made no reference to it in his reasons.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons deficient and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01, arguing it disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff sought damages for privacy torts but failed to plead any material facts.

The court found the claim was improperly pleaded but not obviously frivolous or an abuse of process.

The court stayed the action under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act until the plaintiff files a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of part of its application for relief arising from a fire at an adjoining semi-detached property.

The appellant sought recovery of losses caused by the fire and subsequent conduct of the respondent and its predecessor.

The key issue was whether the respondent, having purchased the damaged property several months after the fire, became liable for damages caused to the appellant's property prior to the respondent's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the respondent had no involvement in and could not be responsible for damages accrued before it acquired the property.

The court also reduced the respondent's costs award on appeal.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a previous decision that dismissed part of the applicant's application and converted the balance into an action.

The respondent sought 83% of its partial indemnity costs, arguing it was substantially successful on the dismissed issue.

The applicant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in costs for the dismissed issue, finding the applicant's changing case theory unnecessarily increased costs, and reserved the remaining costs to the trial judge.

Lixo Investments Limited applied for relief concerning demolition work by FCHT Holdings on an adjacent property, particularly regarding a shared party wall damaged by a prior fire.

The application sought damages for loss of use and reconstruction costs, alleging FCHT was responsible for pre-acquisition fire effects and negligent demolition.

The court dismissed claims related to pre-acquisition events, finding FCHT did not inherit prior tortious conduct.

For claims regarding FCHT's demolition work and its impact on the party wall, the court found material facts in dispute requiring viva voce evidence and expert testimony.

Consequently, the balance of the application was converted into an expedited action for trial.

The individual defendants, Mark Harrison and Graham Lee, brought a motion to strike the action against them in an employment law claim and also sought an order for particulars.

The plaintiff, Gary Watson, alleged constructive dismissal and a poisoned work environment due to the individual defendants' conduct.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged independent wrongdoing by the individual defendants, which was actionable.

The court also dismissed the demand for particulars, noting that the defendants had not demonstrated the particulars were outside their knowledge or necessary to plead.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for confidentiality orders and the plaintiff's cross-motion for a confidentiality order regarding materials for a pending Mareva injunction, the parties made written costs submissions.

The plaintiff sought $15,000, while the defendants argued for no costs due to the novelty of the legal issues.

The court ordered that costs of the motions be fixed at $5,000 in the cause of the Mareva injunction motion, finding this fair given the exigencies of the proceeding.

The court also awarded the defendants $500 each for the costs of their costs submissions, payable by the plaintiff.