Pierre Champagne

Miramare Investment Inc. brought a motion to find AOD Corporation and Alain Mercier in contempt of court for violating a prior order that designated Miramare as the sole entity authorized to deal with a specific patent.

The court had previously ruled that Miramare was the sole entity authorized to deal with the patent, a decision upheld on appeal.

The court found AOD and Alain Mercier guilty of contempt, concluding that the sale of the patent was a clear violation of the court's order.

The judge found Alain Mercier's testimony not credible and confirmed that all elements of contempt were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, AOD Corporation, appealed the dismissal of its application seeking a declaration that a patent agreement was invalid.

The appellant argued that the agreement required shareholder approval under s. 189(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act and that the indoor management rule did not apply because the respondent, Miramare Investment Incorporated, had knowledge of internal irregularities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the s. 189(3) argument was a new issue raised for the first time on appeal without sufficient evidentiary basis.

The court also upheld the application judge's finding that Miramare had no knowledge of any irregularities, thereby affirming the application of the indoor management rule under common law and s. 18(1) of the CBCA.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for oppression.

The plaintiffs, former minority shareholders, alleged that the defendants misappropriated corporate assets and sold shares below true value.

The court struck the claims against the Murison Family Trust with leave to amend, as a trust is not a legal entity.

The claims against 2123388 Ontario Inc. and Exia Biomedical Inc. were struck without leave to amend, as 212 lacked the capacity to oppress and the claims against Exia belonged to the corporation and required a derivative action.

The claim against Obotics Inc. was struck with leave to amend, as no material facts of wrongful conduct were pleaded.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a 1988 agreement between a school board and a municipality for snow and garbage removal services provided in exchange for the sale of a school property for $1.

The municipality unilaterally terminated the services in 2017, arguing the contract was terminable on reasonable notice.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in characterizing the agreement as a personal services contract and in his analysis of surrounding circumstances.

The Court concluded that the agreement was perpetual in nature, given the upfront transfer of an enduring capital asset by the school board and the public nature of the parties' mutually beneficial arrangement, which was not primarily commercial.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to invalidate a patent agreement and the granting of the respondent's counter-application, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the actual fees claimed to be excessive for a simple application.

The court declined to order costs jointly and severally, instead ordering the applicant and the co-respondent (who aligned with the applicant) to pay discrete amounts reflecting their respective contributions to the costs incurred.

The applicant corporation sought a declaration that a patent agreement executed by its former president with the respondent was invalid, arguing the president lacked authority without a two-thirds majority shareholder approval.

The respondent brought a counter-application to enforce the agreement, arguing it was a valid licensing and option agreement.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the counter-application, finding no evidence of a unanimous shareholder agreement restricting the president's authority.

The court applied the indoor management rule and section 18 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, holding that the respondent was entitled to rely on the president's apparent authority to bind the corporation.

The defendant brought a motion in writing on consent for leave to amend its statement of defence and crossclaim.

The court found multiple deficiencies in the motion record, including the failure to attach the proposed amended pleading, lack of supporting affidavit evidence, and an improperly drafted consent and draft order.

Despite the motion being on consent, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the moving party to deliver a fresh, corrected motion record.

Heritage brought a motion seeking an order to strike the Leroux's response to its request for admissions and to compel more adequate responses under Rule 51.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Heritage alleged that the Leroux's refusals to admit 39 statements did not comply with Rule 51.03(3)(b) by failing to provide proper reasons.

The Leroux contended their responses were compliant, providing specific reasons for each refusal.

The court found that the Leroux's responses were neutral and specific, not a "blanket denial," and that the jurisprudence cited by Heritage was distinguishable.

The court concluded that the relevance and sufficiency of the responses, where Rule 51 was respected, were matters for the application or trial judge to determine on the merits, not for an interlocutory motion.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party and responding party are siblings and the sole heirs to their father's estate.

The moving party, acting as the estate trustee, submitted a passing of accounts for the period he acted in that capacity.

The responding party objected to several specific expenses claimed by the moving party, including legal fees, property taxes, and surveying costs.

The court reviewed ten contested items, approving some as legitimate estate expenses while reducing or rejecting others, particularly legal fees related to the litigation between the siblings and an unnecessary surveying cost.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's subrogated claim for delay under Rule 24.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as more than five years had passed since the action was commenced.

The plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, which included failing to answer undertakings for over three years.

Furthermore, the court found the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the oil tank, which was central to determining the cause of the leak, had been destroyed.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action arising from his removal from a KISS concert held in Ottawa.

The motion judge dismissed the action pursuant to Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the appellant had not complied with the Rules and had failed to pay outstanding costs awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion in balancing the interests of justice against the general principle that matters should be heard on their merits, particularly given the appellant's deliberate disregard of court orders and costs awards.

The defendants brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the litigation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants carried on business in Ontario and that the contract for the sale of a tractor was formed in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the defendants' activities did not amount to carrying on business in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court determined that the contract was formed in Quebec during a telephone conversation.

Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a geographic connection to Ontario, and the defendants' motion was granted.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre (CTC) due to the plaintiff's continuous non-compliance and disrespectful conduct.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the self-represented plaintiff to Gene Simmons in the amount of $5,108.03 and to CTC in the amount of $13,021.82, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found the plaintiff's actions, including failure to approve a draft order, requesting unnecessary case conferences, and re-issuing a rejected amended statement of claim, unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and increased costs for the defendants.

The defendants, Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his repeated failure to pay costs orders and non-compliance with court rules and orders.

The plaintiff, Byeongheon Lee, a self-represented litigant, had outstanding costs orders of $5,500 and $500, and had failed to attend multiple case conferences.

The court granted the motions, dismissing the action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, emphasizing the importance of abiding by civil procedure rules and court orders, even for self-represented litigants who have been afforded considerable accommodation.

The plaintiff, Daly Square Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action seeking approximately $130,000 plus interest and possession of the mortgaged property, and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants, 1786097 Ontario Inc. and Camille Mikhael, opposed, arguing for equitable set-off and that their $500,000 counterclaim for property damage was not statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on both its claim and the defendants' counterclaim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding equitable set-off and the limitation period for the counterclaim.

The court also ruled that the defendants were not entitled to legal set-off.

The applicant, a third mortgagee, brought an urgent application for an injunction to prevent the first mortgagee from selling a commercial property under a power of sale, and for an order permitting it to redeem the mortgage.

The court found that the applicant's right to redeem was extinguished when the first mortgagee accepted an offer to purchase the property, as the applicant had failed to tender the required funds when it had the opportunity to do so.

The court also held that the applicant failed to meet the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding alleged bad faith, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva orders obtained by the plaintiff employer in an action for fraud.

The plaintiff alleged that its former employee and his wife used a shell company to secretly mark up the prices of electronic components purchased from Chinese suppliers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had made full and fair disclosure of material facts when obtaining the orders.

The court also held that the evidence justified the continuation of both orders, as there was a strong prima facie case of fraud, a risk of destruction of evidence, and a risk of dissipation of assets.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on a mortgage and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim as statute-barred.

However, the plaintiff failed to include the request to dismiss the counterclaim in its notice of motion.

Citing the need for active case management and proportionality, the court declined to dismiss the limitation period argument outright and instead ordered a timetable allowing the plaintiff to amend its notice of motion and the defendants to file responding evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer questions refused during an examination for discovery in an action for damages caused by a leaking oil tank.

The plaintiffs sought information about other customer complaints and claims regarding corroded steel tanks.

The court found that the defendant's previous answers were evasive and ordered the defendant to provide a detailed list of all customer complaints or claims about water build-up or leaks between 2002 and 2011.

The court also ordered the production of reports to the TSSA and advice received from insurers regarding risk mitigation, while upholding privilege over reports made to insurers.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned lumber company, brought an application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, seeking an order to force the respondents to buy out her shares or liquidate the company.

She alleged that the company's refusal to pay dividends despite being profitable, and its refusal to buy her shares, constituted oppressive conduct.

The respondents argued the claim was statute-barred and that the retention of capital was necessary due to the cyclical nature of the softwood lumber industry and the expiration of the Canada-US softwood lumber agreement.

The court found that while the claim regarding recent non-payment of dividends was not statute-barred, the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving dividends given the industry's challenges.

The court concluded that the company's conservative management style and decision to retain a high working capital were valid business decisions and did not constitute oppression.

The application was dismissed.