Rahul Shastri

The applicant board applied for an inquiry alleging that a city councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the municipal Code of Conduct by participating in and voting on a motion regarding the governance of a non-profit housing corporation where he was employed as Executive Director.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the motion, which called for mediation and potential legal remedies to restore municipal oversight, did not affect a real, present, and definable pecuniary interest of either the corporation or the councillor.

The Commissioner also found that the councillor did not use the influence of his office for a private advantage.

The application and complaint were dismissed.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a pre-hearing motion to exclude the proposed expert opinion evidence of three witnesses tendered by the respondents, Emerge Canada Inc. and Lisa Langley.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ruling that proposed evidence regarding valuation methodologies, NAV calculation, and the scope of audits was inadmissible because those issues were not raised in the Application for Enforcement Proceeding.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion regarding proposed evidence on governance, oversight, and internal controls, finding it premature to exclude such evidence before the merits hearing, and deferred the determination of its admissibility and the experts' qualifications.

The Capital Markets Tribunal heard three procedural motions ahead of a scheduled merits hearing.

The respondents Emerge Canada Inc. and Lisa Langley sought an adjournment to retain counsel, which the Tribunal dismissed for failing to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the Ontario Securities Commission's motion requiring Emerge and Langley to provide further and better witness summaries.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the Commission's motion to pre-emptively exclude the anticipated factual testimony of a witness, finding it premature, but ordered the respondents to provide a more detailed summary of his expected evidence.

Following the applicant's abandonment of an application for leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of a corporation, the respondent sought costs pursuant to Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered whether to depart from the presumptive costs entitlement and found that the applicant had not established on a balance of probabilities that the application disclosed a bona fide cause of action, particularly given the limitation period defence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $30,000 all-inclusive, the court declining to award substantial or full indemnity costs as the case did not constitute one of those rare and exceptional circumstances warranting elevated costs.

This costs endorsement follows the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision to allow the respondent’s motion to quash the appeal.

The court reviewed written submissions on costs and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent $8,088.54 in partial indemnity costs.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed their motion for leave to appeal an arbitrator's award.

The respondent moved to quash the appellants' motion, arguing that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant leave to appeal an arbitral award when decided on the merits.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the application judge did not mistakenly decline jurisdiction but rather determined the leave application on its merits.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's motion and quashed the appellants' motion for leave to appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement agreement reached between the parties' counsel.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that their lawyer lacked authority to settle for the agreed amount and that they had recently discovered billing fraud by the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants' lawyer had apparent authority to bind them and that the defendants were already aware of the alleged billing issues before the settlement was finalized.

Consequently, the court allowed the motion and granted judgment in accordance with the settlement terms.

The defendant, Wilco Contractors Superior Inc., brought a motion to transfer a breach of contract action commenced by Don Anderson Haulage Limited (DAHL) from Newmarket to Thunder Bay.

The court considered the nine factors under Rule 13.01.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the majority of the factors, including the location of the events, damages, and convenience of witnesses, favoured a transfer to Thunder Bay.

The motion was granted, and the action was ordered transferred.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, with written submissions on costs to follow.

The applicants, Steven Bulut and 1091369 Ontario Inc., sought leave to appeal an arbitral award granting Marko N. Bulut a 50% constructive trust interest in real property.

The court declined to grant leave, finding no error of law in the arbitrator’s application of the law of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, limitation periods, or issue estoppel/abuse of process.

The court also declined to recognize the award under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act at this time, as no application for such relief was before the court and certain matters remained outstanding before the arbitrator.

The applicant, Marian Elizabeth Breukelman, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis after successfully defending a motion by the respondent, Dario Antonio Miret, to remove her lawyers for an alleged conflict of interest.

The court, M.D. Faieta J., assessed the costs considering factors such as the applicant's success, the complexity and importance of the issues, the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle, and the reasonableness of the time claimed by multiple counsel.

The court found the motion complex and important, and that the respondent failed to meet his obligation to settle.

While acknowledging the use of multiple counsel, the court found the total time claimed excessive and adjusted the costs downward.

The defendants were charged with undertaking development in a wetland without a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The prosecution brought a motion to preclude the defendants from challenging the TRCA's jurisdiction and the existence of a wetland, which the court dismissed as violating the presumption of innocence.

The defendants brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found a net delay of 21.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offences.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, which was exacerbated by a lack of judicial resources, the court stayed the charges.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Maxx Properties (No. 323) Ltd. and Blake Larsen, due to multiple defaults under credit and forbearance agreements.

The debtor admitted default but requested a brief extension, citing a pending transaction.

The court granted the receiver appointment, finding that the debtor had repeatedly defaulted on obligations, failed to comply with forbearance terms, and provided insufficient evidence of the proposed transaction's viability.

The court emphasized the erosion of RBC's security and the debtor's non-compliance.

The Canadian Western Bank (CWB) applied for the appointment of a receiver over the assets of 2563773 Ontario Inc. (the Respondent), a hotel property, due to a secured loan default.

The Respondent sought to dismiss or adjourn the application, citing a pending agreement for the sale of the property that would pay out the indebtedness.

The court applied the "just or convenient" test for receiver appointment under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

Despite the Respondent's efforts, the court found that the prolonged default, the Respondent's failure to comply with a forbearance agreement (specifically regarding priority payables like HST and property taxes), and the uncertainty surrounding the proposed sale agreement (due to inaccurate representations and refusal to secure a deposit) warranted the immediate appointment of a receiver.

The application was granted, and PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. was appointed as receiver.

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The plaintiff commenced an action against her husband's children and the lawyers who acted for him in prior divorce proceedings, alleging conspiracy, abuse of process, and other torts.

The defendants moved to strike or dismiss the claims under Rule 21.

The court dismissed the claims against the adverse lawyers, finding no duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the tort claims for abuse of process, conspiracy, and intentional interference with economic relations as an abuse of process by relitigation, as they sought to undermine the final settlement reached in the divorce proceedings.

The defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering claims were struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder and employee of a closely held construction management company, brought an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression after a contentious meeting where the majority shareholders claimed he resigned.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated without cause, as his emotional outburst did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation.

The court also found the majority shareholders engaged in oppressive conduct by unilaterally removing him as a director, withholding his shareholder loan, and failing to value his shares upon termination.

To rectify the oppression, the court valued the plaintiff's shares at the subsequent fiscal year-end, awarding $440,100 for the shares, $100,000 for pay in lieu of notice, and $75,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' high-handed conduct.

The appellants (UDG) appealed a motion judge's decision to permanently stay their Ontario proceeding in favour of ongoing litigation in Singapore and Dubai.

UDG had commenced the Ontario action seeking declarations against the respondents (TAP), effectively advancing as claims the same allegations they made as defences in the foreign proceedings.

The motion judge found that a related loan involving Rutmet was distinct from UDG's loans and that UDG's Ontario action was an attempt to gain a jurisdictional advantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her fact-finding, exercise of discretion, or analysis of attornment and forum selection clauses.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ontario proceedings remained stayed.

The Plaintiffs (UDG) sought an anti-suit injunction to halt proceedings against them in Dubai and Singapore concerning an alleged outstanding debt and guarantees.

The Defendants (TAP) cross-moved to dismiss or stay the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, citing forum selection clauses.

The court denied the anti-suit injunction, finding UDG failed to meet the Amchem test, particularly by not pursuing stays in the foreign jurisdictions.

The court also found Ontario was not the natural forum, given the parties' residences, witness locations, and applicable foreign laws.

The Plaintiffs' Ontario action was permanently stayed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay $874,107.08 to the responding party.

The funds had been mistakenly paid to the moving party by a third-party customer of the responding party.

The moving party argued it was entitled to retain the funds as a set-off against debts owed by the responding party, who was under CCAA protection.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious because set-off did not constitute a juristic reason to retain mistakenly paid funds under the unjust enrichment framework.

This endorsement records that the parties have settled the matter, with judgment to be entered in favour of the plaintiffs against at least some of the defendants.

Counsel are tasked with finalizing the interest calculation and submitting a draft judgment for approval.