Samantha Del Frate

The applicant sought an order disqualifying and removing the arbitrator in a mediation-arbitration proceeding between a condominium corporation and a hotel corporation regarding disputes over cost-sharing, maintenance, and utilities.

The arbitrator disclosed that a proposed expert witness for the applicant had recently referred an unrelated litigation matter to the arbitrator's law firm, with the arbitrator tasked with carriage of that matter.

The arbitrator initially identified a clear appearance of conflict and proposed three options, including his resignation or waiver by both parties.

However, after the respondent objected to the arbitrator's withdrawal, the arbitrator reversed his position and refused to resign.

The court found that while a single business referral might not justify disqualification, the subsequent events—including the arbitrator's initial determination of a clear appearance of conflict, his reversal of position, and the manner in which he attempted to manage the conflict—gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application was granted and the arbitrator was disqualified.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs could post security for costs by way of a third-ranking charge against real property, rather than in cash or by letter of credit.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient sworn evidence regarding the value and equity of the property, nor had they demonstrated that the proposed security would be a reliable and accessible source of funds for the defendants.

The court declined to approve the third-ranking mortgage as security and ordered that security be posted in an acceptable form, such as cash or a letter of credit, extending the deadline for posting security by one week.

The applicants sought a declaration and mandatory order requiring the respondent minority shareholder to complete a share purchase transaction pursuant to a Shareholders' Agreement.

The respondent argued the applicants repudiated the agreement by failing to comply with the valuation process, specifically by unilaterally appointing real estate appraisers and instructing accountants to alter financial statements to exclude a settlement payment.

The court found the applicants fundamentally breached the agreement's valuation provisions, depriving the respondent of the bargained-for process.

The application was dismissed, allowing the respondent to remain a minority shareholder.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal arising from a trial judgment concerning oppression and conspiracy claims related to a condominium corporation.

The appellants (original defendants) challenged the trial judge's findings that claims against one defendant were not statute-barred, the award of punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) cross-appealed the prejudgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's decisions on all contested issues, including the application of limitation periods, the appropriateness of punitive damages for egregious conduct, and the discretion in awarding substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest.