Reeva Finkel

The plaintiff, a distributor of lighting retrofit kits, sued the defendant local distribution company for over $20 million in damages after its business failed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently delayed and suspended approvals for customer rebates under a provincial energy conservation program, raising unfounded safety concerns.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, as the rebate program was exclusively for the benefit of customers.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendant's safety concerns were legitimate, the processing times were not unreasonable, and the plaintiff's financial collapse was caused by internal disputes, loss of inventory, and withdrawal of bank financing rather than the defendant's actions.

Claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and misfeasance in public office were also dismissed.

The moving party, a resident of the Netherlands, brought a motion to stay or dismiss a third-party claim against him, set aside service, and require the action to be commenced in the Netherlands or Ireland.

The claim arose from a loan agreement governed by the laws of the Netherlands.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the third-party claim, as the contract was made and performed outside Ontario and the moving party had no ties to the province.

The court also concluded that the Netherlands was the more appropriate forum and set aside the service ex juris under Rule 17.02.

The motion was granted and the third-party claim was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporations sought declarations of ownership, breach of trust, and oppression against the developer regarding a community clubhouse.

The developer had retained ownership of the clubhouse, subject to a mortgage, pending the sale of all remaining units and lands in the project, as set out in the disclosure statements.

The court dismissed the application, finding no trust relationship, no breach of the obligation to convey the clubhouse since the condition precedent had not been met, and no oppressive conduct by the developer in its management, mortgaging, or fee-charging for the clubhouse.