Rebecca Shoom

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay class proceedings and individual actions against them.

They argued they were entitled to a stay because they did not receive timely disclosure of a partial settlement between the plaintiffs and a co-defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the strict partial settlement disclosure rule does not apply to class proceedings, which are governed by the settlement approval regime in the Class Proceedings Act.

The court found the appellants received timely disclosure and were not prejudiced.

This five-judge appeal reconsidered the common law governing non-disclosure of partial settlement agreements in multi-party civil litigation.

The court held that the prior rule mandating an automatic finding of abuse of process and an automatic stay, without proof of prejudice or regard to proportionality, was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

The proper approach requires a contextual and discretionary abuse of process analysis focused on unfairness, prejudice, oppression, harm to the administration of justice, and a proportionate remedy, with r. 49.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure reinforcing that framework.

Applying that approach, the court allowed two appeals and remitted those matters, while dismissing two others where the record was sufficient to determine the result.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing two related actions for delay following a status review under Rule 48.14(5).

The actions, arising from a property dispute, had not advanced beyond the pleadings stage after six to seven years.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's application of the Henderson test, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that the appellant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

This endorsement addresses a scheduling dispute in a class action involving dentists who purchased insurance policies brokered by CDSPI Advisory Services Inc. and issued by Aviva companies.

The plaintiffs sought to adjourn upcoming motions for settlement approval and a stay of proceedings, pending an anticipated Court of Appeal decision in Thrive Capital Management Ltd. et al v. Noble 1324 Queen Inc. et al., which may reconsider the principles in Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited regarding partial settlements.

The court declined to adjourn, emphasizing the need for timely resolution and noting that new procedural rules (Rule 49.14) would be in force for the scheduled hearing.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a motion for injunctive relief brought by Mondee, Inc. and related plaintiffs against Voyzant Inc. and several individual defendants.

The court granted limited injunctive relief to Mondee, primarily the return and destruction of its information, but dismissed broader relief sought against the defendants.

The court found that the defendants were more successful on the substantive issues and awarded costs to Voyzant Inc. and the non-Binning departing employees, while denying costs to Jasvinder Binning due to his conduct.

The court declined to award Mondee its costs, holding that costs should generally be reserved to the trial judge where a trial is likely.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The appellants appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing their cross-motion to amend their statement of claim to add a new plaintiff on the basis of misnomer under Rule 5.04(2).

The proposed claim by the new plaintiff was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Associate Justice applied the correct legal test for misnomer, properly distinguished outdated case law relying on the defunct 'special circumstances' doctrine, and made factual findings regarding the lack of intention to include the new plaintiff that were entitled to deference.

Following an appeal that was allowed in part with divided success, the parties made written submissions regarding costs in the court below.

The appellants sought to set aside a $20,000 costs award against them, while the respondent argued the costs order should remain.

The Court of Appeal held that the divided success on appeal informed the appropriate disposition of costs below.

The court set aside the $20,000 costs award and ordered no costs of the motion in the court below.

The current owner of the subject property brought a motion to dismiss the municipality's assessment appeal, arguing that the municipality failed to provide proper notice under section 40(9) of the Assessment Act by mailing the notice of appeal to the former owner.

The former owner was incorrectly listed on the returned assessment roll due to the timing of the sale.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 40(9) requires notice to be sent to the person liable to assessment as shown on the assessment roll.

The Board held that the assessment roll is binding until corrected, and the municipality complied with the statutory requirements by serving the person named on the roll within the limitation period.

The appellant reinsurer appealed a trial judgment ordering it to indemnify the respondent retrocedant for its share of a $140 million settlement reached by the lead insurer regarding a business interruption claim.

The appellant argued it was not bound by the 'follow settlements' clause in the retrocession agreement because it had not agreed to the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant was bound by the single proviso follow settlements clause, that the settlement arguably fell within coverage as a matter of law, and that the lead insurer took proper and businesslike steps in reaching the settlement.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order that permanently stayed their action against a law firm (A&B) on the basis that it constituted an abuse of process for not having been added to an existing 'Main Action' involving the same factual circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in concluding that commencing a separate action was an abuse of process, as it is not always abusive to start a new action instead of amending an existing one, especially when distinct claims or privilege concerns are involved.

However, the Court upheld the procedural direction that the claims should proceed in a single action.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the permanent stay and replacing it with a temporary stay, allowing the appellants to bring a motion to add A&B as a defendant to the Main Action, with the ultimate determination of a permanent stay to be made by the motion judge hearing that application.

ID Inc. appealed the dismissal of its claim against StrategyCorp, which arose from a dispute over the transformation of a billboard to a digital sign and a related consulting agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that StrategyCorp did not intentionally interfere with ID Inc.'s economic relations, the consulting agreement was conditional on a separate agreement that never materialized, StrategyCorp had repudiated the agreement which ID Inc. accepted by silence, and StrategyCorp did not breach its duty of good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

The requesting party sought an order compelling the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Three third-party property owners objected to the disclosure without confidentiality protections.

The Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure request pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act, ordering that the documents be produced subject to MPAC's standard confidentiality agreement and that certain documents filed with the Board remain confidential and not form part of the public record.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease, specifically the allocation of risk for fire damage.

The landlord, James Dick Construction Limited (JDC), sued its tenant, Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited (CAW), for damages after a fire destroyed one leased building and damaged another.

JDC alleged CAW breached the lease by failing to maintain the sprinkler system.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the landlord's covenant to insure the buildings allocated the risk of fire loss to the landlord, even if the tenant was responsible for sprinkler system repair expenses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that while a covenant to insure generally implies risk allocation to the covenantor, this is not an absolute rule and requires a holistic interpretation of the entire contract and surrounding circumstances.

The Court found no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the law.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's costs award under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The arbitrator had awarded the respondent its full legal expenses, including fees paid to its corporate counsel for 'litigation support'.

The court first determined that leave to appeal an arbitral costs award is not required under section 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, as that provision applies only to courts.

On the merits, the court found that the arbitrator did not err in principle or act plainly wrong in awarding full indemnity costs, noting that the Arbitration Act does not bind arbitrators to the scales of costs in the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's decision to allow recovery of the litigation support fees.

The appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in illegal distribution of securities, unregistered trading, securities fraud, and improper revenue recognition, the Capital Markets Tribunal determined the appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement totaling $4.91 million, administrative penalties totaling $3.175 million, and significant market restrictions, including permanent bans for the GBR parties and multi-year bans for the First Global parties.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay costs totaling $1,080,285, apportioned based on their respective roles and the time spent investigating and litigating the various contraventions.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

This application concerned an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, brought by a daughter (applicant) against her mother (respondent) and related corporations in a closely held family business.

The applicant alleged oppressive conduct by the respondent, specifically a debt conversion and share issue that diverted corporate revenues to the respondent and terminated the applicant's long-standing income stream.

The court applied the two-step test for oppression, finding that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of continued financial support and participation in the residual value of the corporation.

The court determined that the respondent's actions breached these reasonable expectations and constituted oppressive conduct.

Consequently, the debt conversion and share issue were set aside.

The court declined to remove the respondent as director but directed the parties to negotiate a fair resolution for ongoing payments based on their respective needs and available resources, with the option to return to court if an agreement could not be reached.