Richard MacGregor

The appellant, Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA), appealed a trial judgment finding it breached a Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA) with the respondent, ID Inc., regarding the conversion of a billboard to a digital sign.

The trial judge had awarded ID Inc. damages for lost profits, finding the SMA had not expired and that TWPA had waived or was estopped from relying on the expiry provision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in her contractual interpretation by injecting a fault concept into the plain language of the SMA, which clearly stated the agreement would terminate if a permit was not obtained within 360 days.

The Court also found no evidence to support waiver or estoppel.

ID Inc.'s cross-appeal regarding an alleged separate oral agreement was dismissed, as the trial judge correctly applied the objective test for contract formation.

The action against TWPA was dismissed.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sued the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp for breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and conspiracy regarding a project to convert a static billboard at the Ontario Food Terminal to a digital sign.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement for a share of advertising revenue and a written Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA).

The court found no oral agreement existed but held that the TWPA breached the SMA and its duty of good faith by waiving a 360-day permit condition and then secretly contracting with a competitor.

Claims against StrategyCorp for interference, conspiracy, and breach of confidence were dismissed.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost profits on the construction and maintenance of the sign.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for an interlocutory compliance order and restraining orders against a unit owner and its principals/agents.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a multi-year pattern of threatening, abusive, and harassing behaviour towards the board of directors, property management, and other unit owners, including threats of litigation and physical intimidation.

The court found that the defendants' conduct violated section 117 of the Condominium Act, constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and was oppressive under section 135 of the Condominium Act.

The court granted interlocutory orders restraining the defendants from further harassment and from soliciting proxies.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The plaintiff's action for damages in excess of $5,000,000 was dismissed after a multi-week trial.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $232,663.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a significant reduction due to his limited ability to pay and alleged duplication of effort by the defendants' counsel over the 20-year litigation history.

The court rejected the duplication argument, noting the plaintiff's responsibility for the delay, and fixed the defendants' partial indemnity costs at $225,000, considering the complexity of the case and the amount claimed.

The plaintiff, a former lawyer, sued the investigating police officer, the police services board, and the municipality for negligent investigation after he was charged with fraud, perjury, and obstructing justice.

The criminal charges were ultimately not pursued after a preliminary inquiry was terminated due to an unsworn Information.

The plaintiff claimed the charges destroyed his law practice and caused significant financial losses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the police officer's investigation met the standard of a reasonable police officer and that there were reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's financial losses were caused by other personal and business factors, not the police investigation.