Rahool Parkash Agarwal

Following a successful motion for a Mareva injunction freezing $20 million of the respondent husband's assets, the applicant wife sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court found the husband acted in bad faith by failing to make financial disclosure, breaching preservation orders, and hiding assets.

As a result, mandatory full recovery costs were ordered under Rule 24(10).

The court reduced the requested amount of $184,450 to $125,000 to reflect a fair and reasonable amount, noting overstaffing by the wife's legal team.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty and knowing assistance, the defendants sought costs.

The Primary Defendants sought full indemnification pursuant to the plaintiff's corporate by-laws, while the Consultant Defendants sought full indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and self-dealing.

The court awarded the Primary Defendants full indemnification totaling over $9.4 million, finding no reason to depart from the by-laws.

The Consultant Defendants were awarded substantial indemnity costs of approximately $2.4 million, as the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing serious, unfounded allegations justified an elevated scale of costs.

This decision grants an interlocutory injunction exempting all existing supervised consumption sites (SCSs) in Ontario from the operation of section 2 of the Community Care and Recovery Act, 2024, pending a final decision on the merits.

The court finds that the three-part test for injunctive relief is met: there is a serious issue to be tried regarding Charter rights, irreparable harm would result from SCS closures, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

The ruling details the public health crisis of opioid use, the role of SCSs in harm reduction, and the disproportionate impact of closures on marginalized populations.

This decision resolves two related oppression applications concerning the ownership and management of a closely held family trucking and logistics business, the World Wide Group of Companies.

The court finds that, despite the corporate records, there was an oral agreement among the four principal family members (two brothers and two brothers-in-law) that they would be equal beneficial owners of the main operating company and related entities.

The court orders rectification of the share register and grants a buy-out remedy to effect a final separation of interests, given the irreparable breakdown in relationships and mutual trust.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for wrongful termination of a Consulting Agreement, and the defendant counterclaimed for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations.

The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding no misrepresentation or reliance.

The court also dismissed the balance of the plaintiffs' claim, finding the defendant was entitled to terminate the Consulting Agreement due to the plaintiffs' wilful conduct harming business relationships through lack of forthrightness.

However, the plaintiffs were granted judgment for unreimbursed expenses.

This appeal concerned whether an order appointing an arbitrator under section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, is appealable.

The appellant argued that the application judge erred in appointing the arbitrator and in not limiting the scope of the arbitration.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal, asserting that section 10(2) of the Act precludes appeals from such appointments.

The Court of Appeal held that the power to appoint an arbitrator under section 10(1)(b) applies when parties fail to agree or one party refuses to follow through on an agreement to appoint.

This interpretation is consistent with the Act's purpose of limiting court intervention and appeal rights in arbitration matters.

The court found that the application judge's order, including the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction, was made under section 10(1) and was therefore not appealable.

The appeal was quashed.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against several discount brokers regarding the receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions.

The motion judge had found no basis in fact for the core proposed common issue of whether the receipt of such commissions contravened applicable Canadian securities law prior to their explicit prohibition in 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test, properly concluded that all pleaded causes of action relied on the allegation of illegality, and appropriately held the plaintiffs to their strategic concession that the entire action would fail if the core issue was not certified.

This case conference addressed the content and costs of the notice to be sent to class members following certification of a class action against an insurer.

The defendant insurer objected to the proposed notice content, which encouraged class members to submit claims, arguing it was improper advocacy.

The insurer also challenged the scope of notice distribution (to brokers and on its website) and sought to avoid notice costs.

The court approved the plaintiff's proposed notice content, finding it consistent with the insurer's own position on claim submission and the purpose of class notice.

The court denied the request for the insurer to post the notice on its website but ordered the insurer to provide policyholder and broker contact information.

The court further ordered that the costs of disseminating the notice, including administrator fees, be shared equally between the class and the insurer, citing the insurer's blanket denial of coverage as a factor.

The applicants brought a motion for an interim and/or interlocutory order to restrain the respondents from exercising powers prejudicial to their interests in a family trucking business and to nullify recent corporate governance actions.

The court granted a partial injunction, restraining the respondents from acting prejudicially or outside the corporation's best interests, finding a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoring this restraint.

However, the court denied the request to nullify the corporate governance actions (which removed the applicants as directors and officers), as this constituted a mandatory injunction requiring a strong prima facie case, which the applicants failed to meet regarding their shareholder status.

Sukhdev Dhaliwal remained the sole shareholder, director, and officer, subject to the imposed restraints.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal three orders of Morgan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $35,500.

The Representative Plaintiff, Marc-Oliver Baroch, brought a consent motion in a certified and settled class action to amend the Distribution Protocol.

The motion sought approval to reallocate uncashed funds from the first distribution, distribute accrued interest, allow for further distribution to class members who missed the first distribution, and obtain a cy-pres order for any remaining excess funds to be donated to SickKids Hospital and/or the OTA Education Foundation.

The defendants did not oppose the motion, and the court granted the requested amendments to ensure efficient and complete distribution of settlement funds.

The applicant, Competition Motors Limited (CML), sought to set aside an arbitral award from an Appeal Panel under the National Automobile Dealer Arbitration Program (NADAP) Rules, pursuant to sections 46(1)3 and 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

CML argued the Appeal Panel exceeded its jurisdiction by applying an incorrect standard of review (correctness on facts without deference, akin to a de novo hearing) when reversing an initial arbitral decision that found Toyota Canada Inc. (TCI) unreasonably withheld consent to CML's dealership sale.

The court dismissed CML's application, finding that the issue raised was not one of true jurisdiction under s. 46(1)3, and even if it were, the Appeal Panel acted within its mandate by interpreting and applying the NADAP Rules' unique correctness standard for both law and fact, which allows for a re-evaluation of evidence to reach a "better" conclusion without conducting a full de novo trial.

The court also dismissed the procedural fairness argument as it was contingent on the jurisdictional claim.

The Métis National Council Secretariat Inc. (MNC) brought a motion seeking joint custody of funds and an online database, and disclosure of records from the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. (MMF).

While the parties largely resolved the substantive issues by consent, they could not agree on costs.

The court found MMF overwhelmingly successful on the motion, as MNC failed to obtain the extraordinary relief it sought, and the modest relief obtained by consent would likely have been provided voluntarily.

The court awarded MMF partial indemnity costs of $213,687.57, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the motion and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The plaintiff and several defendants brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves allegations by the plaintiff that the defendants engaged in a plan to cause financial harm and confer unlawful benefits upon their departure from the organization.

The court applied principles of relevance and proportionality, ordering the parties to answer certain questions and fulfill specific undertakings while upholding refusals for questions that were irrelevant, disproportionate, or improper.

In a certified and settled class action, the Representative Plaintiff brought a consent motion to amend the Distribution Protocol, seeking an additional $90,000 for administrative expenses to complete a Second Distribution of settlement funds.

The initial settlement of $22,250,000 included $780,000 for administration.

Due to uncashed cheques and ongoing administrative efforts, the settlement administrator and financial expert required more funds.

The court found the request for additional administrative expenses fair and reasonable given the settlement value, number of class members, and complexity of the distribution, and granted the motion.

The appellants, 36 former employees and shareholders of NexJ Systems Inc., appealed an application judge's order approving a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The plan compelled them to sell their shares in NexJ Systems Inc. and NexJ Health Holdings Inc. to N. Harris Computer Corporation, and included a broad release of claims.

The appellants argued the plan was not fair or reasonable, breached prior agreements, denied procedural fairness by releasing claims without trial, and that the judge exceeded jurisdiction by including shares of a related company (NexJ Health).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the 2011 agreements, confirming jurisdiction over the related company's shares as necessary for the financing, and affirming the valid business purpose of the plan.

The Plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., was successful in a certification motion and related motions.

This endorsement addresses the costs for these motions, which involved two rounds of hearings due to a recusal by the initial judge.

The court determined the appropriate costs, considering the re-usable work from the first hearing and the work for the second hearing, ultimately awarding the Plaintiff $1,000,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion for a limited permanent sealing order on consent over proprietary information submitted by two bidders during a competitive procurement process for public transportation services.

The court applied the three-part test from Sherman Estate and found that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of maintaining the integrity of future procurement processes.

The court granted the sealing order, concluding that the benefits of protecting the commercially sensitive information outweighed the negative effects on court openness.

This case concerns a re-hearing of a certification motion for a class action against Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Aviva General Insurance Company, and Aviva Canada Inc. regarding business interruption insurance claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., sought to certify a class of businesses whose claims were denied or not submitted due to the defendants' alleged blanket denial policy.

The defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment against Nordik and a declaration concerning the tolling of the limitation period.

The court certified the class action, dismissed the defendants' summary judgment and limitation tolling motions, and allowed the addition of three new representative plaintiffs (Cash and Carry Inc., Hangar9 Studios Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.).

The decision addresses the adequacy of the representative plaintiff, the identifiable class, and the common issues, particularly regarding notice requirements and the interpretation of insurance policy clauses in the context of pandemic-related business closures.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.