Philip Underwood

The Applicants, minority shareholders, sought to enforce a "shotgun" buy/sell provision in a unanimous shareholders agreement (USA) against the Respondent, the majority shareholder.

The Respondent failed to exercise his option to buy or sell within the stipulated 15-day period, arguing the Applicants' buy/sell notice was invalid due to alleged threats of mass resignation by management, bad faith, oppression, and breach of implied terms.

The court found the buy/sell notice strictly complied with the USA and rejected the Respondent's arguments, finding no evidence of unlawful threats or breaches of duty.

The court also denied the Respondent's request to convert the application into a trial and consolidate it with a separate action, emphasizing the purpose of buy/sell provisions for expeditious resolution.

The application was granted, deeming the Respondent to have accepted the offer to sell his shares.

The applicant, who lost a municipal school trustee election by a single vote, sought a recount under s. 58 of the Municipal Elections Act.

The court distinguished between undervotes and overvotes/adjudicated ballots.

While dismissing the request for a recount of the 258 undervotes due to their common nature and lack of specific evidence of error, the court found objective grounds to doubt the result based on a single overvote and an unknown number of adjudicated mail-in ballots.

Consequently, a narrow recount was ordered for the overvote and adjudicated ballots to ensure fairness and avoid disenfranchising voters, given the extremely close margin.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs after dismissing their claims, which were found to be statute-barred, subject to res judicata and issue estoppel, abuses of process, and collateral attacks.

The claims were deemed devoid of merit and repetitive of earlier unsuccessful actions.

The court emphasized that the claims should never have been brought, especially for a third time, and that the plaintiffs' conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations, delaying tactics, and unrealistic settlement offers, warranted the highest scale of costs.

The plaintiff, StorageVault Canada Inc., brought a motion for the issuance of certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against the defendants concerning seven parcels of land.

StorageVault alleged a binding agreement for the purchase of these properties, seeking specific performance.

The defendants opposed, arguing no binding agreement existed and that specific performance was not an appropriate remedy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue regarding a breach of contract or the availability of specific performance, as the draft agreements were non-binding, the alleged agreement was not capable of performance due to third-party approvals and rights of first refusal, and the properties were not unique, making damages an adequate remedy.

The equities were found to favour the defendants.

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment concerning the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) and related employment agreements.

The dispute arose after the appellants (purchasers of a business) furloughed one of the respondents (sellers/employees) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the respondents asserted was a constructive dismissal.

The SPA included an "Accelerated Provision" for a capital payment if an employee was terminated without cause, and an "Unprofitable Quarter Provision" allowing termination for cause without penalty.

The motion judge found constructive dismissal without cause, triggering the Accelerated Provision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's interpretation that the appellants had not exercised their option to terminate for cause under the Unprofitable Quarter Provision, and that their actions constituted a termination without cause, thereby triggering the payment.

The court emphasized deference to the motion judge's contractual interpretation and rejected arguments of commercial absurdity.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated a recommendation for the plaintiffs to agree to dismissals without costs in most cases, except potentially the claim against Grant Thornton LLP Canada, which requires leave to proceed.

The court directed that a new class action issued by one of the plaintiffs be case managed together with the existing matters.

Counsel were directed to advise on dismissals or agree on a timetable for dispositive motions by a specified date.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRAO) applied for an order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare Mohan Joy Kurian a vexatious litigant and prohibit him from commencing further proceedings without leave.

The application stemmed from Kurian's six-year campaign of persistent, groundless litigation and complaints against his former credit union, Alterna Savings and Credit Union/Quintefirst Credit Union (Intervenor), and FSRAO, including multiple dismissed lawsuits and unpaid costs.

The court found Kurian's conduct to be vexatious, marked by abuse of process, harassment, and disrespect for the administration of justice, and granted the order, with the exception of one ongoing action against a former business partner.

Costs were awarded to FSRAO and Alterna.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

The applicants (Sellers) and respondents (Purchasers) disputed the process for valuing shares under a shareholders agreement following the termination of the Sellers' employment.

The Sellers applied to appoint their preferred arbitrator and argued for a full arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Purchasers cross-applied to appoint their preferred arbitrator, seeking a streamlined valuation process and a court declaration on the valuation date.

The court held that the agreement contemplated a formal arbitration under the Act, not merely a valuation.

The court declined to determine the valuation date, leaving it to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle, and ordered the parties to select a neutral third-party arbitrator.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.

The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.

The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.

The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.

Loan Away Inc. appealed a motion judge's order that stayed its application against Facebook, Inc. The original application sought injunctive relief and damages after Facebook suspended Loan Away's advertising.

The stay was granted based on a forum selection clause in Facebook's Terms of Service, which mandated disputes be resolved in California under California law.

Loan Away also challenged the motion judge's refusal to adjourn the stay motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the motion judge properly exercised discretion in denying the adjournment and correctly applied the two-step test for enforcing forum selection clauses in a commercial context, finding Loan Away failed to demonstrate "strong cause" to override the clause.

The moving party, former counsel for the applicant, brought a motion for a charging order pursuant to section 34 of the Solicitors Act for unpaid legal fees.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing there was no evidence to justify the order.

The court applied the three-part test for a charging order and found that the property was preserved through the law firm's instrumentality and that the applicant had no intention of paying the outstanding fees.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the moving party.

The plaintiffs sought to schedule an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the closure of schools to in-person learning in York Region due to COVID-19, prior to commencing a formal proceeding.

Several unions and school boards sought to intervene.

The court scheduled the injunction motion conditionally, requiring the plaintiffs to formally commence an action or application first.

The court declined to schedule the intervention motions on an urgent basis, finding it would be unfair to the responding parties given the tight timeline.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to significantly increase the damages claimed (from $60 million to $662 million) and to elaborate on the theoretical basis for these damages, including through the application of unjust enrichment.

This motion followed a prior summary judgment that established Ontario's liability for breach of contract, with damages to be assessed.

The defendant, Ontario, opposed the amendments, arguing they were barred by res judicata (issue and cause of action estoppel), abuse of process, and constituted a collateral attack, particularly concerning the unjust enrichment claim which was subject to a pending appeal.

The court granted leave for most amendments, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

It clarified that while the unjust enrichment claim as a cause of action was under appeal and could not be bolstered, the amendments could be used to plead theories of damages for the existing contract claim.

The defendant purchaser brought a motion to stay the plaintiff vendor's civil action in favour of arbitration, relying on the arbitration clause in the Tarion Addendum to their agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The plaintiff conceded the existence and scope of the arbitration agreement but argued the court should refuse the stay due to undue delay, waiver, and because the matter was proper for summary judgment.

The court found no waiver or undue delay, noting the action had not progressed significantly past pleadings.

The court also held the case was not proper for summary judgment as it involved disputed facts and issues of anticipatory breach.

The motion to stay the action was granted.

This addendum to a prior summary judgment resolves a dispute over the precise amount outstanding under a settlement agreement, which was a condition for granting relief from forfeiture to the defendants.

The court determined the defendants were liable for $12,000 in default administration fees for a specific period (July, August, September 2018) and $108,624.53 in legal fees incurred before November 2018, totaling $120,624.53.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for interest on default administration fees and for default administration fees accruing after October 2018 due to the plaintiff's own intransigence in providing an accounting.

A deadline of 30 days was set for payment, failing which the relief from forfeiture would be null and void.

The plaintiffs, a group of mortgage lenders, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking full arrears at a 25% annual interest rate and default administration fees after the defendants breached a settlement agreement.

The settlement had reduced the interest rate, but the defendants' opposition to a property sale approval motion triggered a clause voiding the release.

The defendants sought relief from forfeiture or argued the rates violated the federal Interest Act.

The court granted relief from forfeiture, finding the breach caused minimal prejudice to the lenders compared to the substantial forfeiture sought, and ordered an accounting of any remaining settlement amounts.

The court also found the 25% interest rate and default fees were not unenforceable under the Interest Act due to prior Supreme Court and Court of Appeal rulings on time-triggered rate increases and consensual resolutions.

The respondent credit union brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by debtors from a receivership order.

The order appointed a receiver over two residential properties pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants sought to appeal without leave.

The court held that no appeal as of right existed and declined to grant leave to appeal, finding that the appeal did not raise an issue of general importance, was not prima facie meritorious, and would unduly hinder the receivership proceedings.

The motion was granted and the appeal quashed with costs fixed at $20,000.