CITATION: The Investment Administration Solution v Agilith Capital, 2017 ONSC 6537
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-543620
DATE: 20171107
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATION SOLUTION INC.
Plaintiff
– and –
AGILITH CAPITAL INC.
Defendant
John Ormston and Lindsay Moffatt for the Plaintiff
Conor D. O’Hare, for the Defendant
HEARD: October 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION
DIAMOND J.:
Overview
[1] The defendant is an Ontario corporation offering investment management services to the public. The defendant commenced operations in or around August 2007, and continues to service high net worth, long term clients.
[2] The plaintiff is also an Ontario corporation, and carries on business in the field of providing third party administrator services to the investment fund and financial product industry, along with back office fund administration services for transfer agency and fund accounting.
[3] Pursuant to an Investment Administration Services Agreement dated January 1, 2010 (“the Agreement”), the plaintiff provided the defendant with access to the plaintiff’s Investment Advisor Plus software (“the software”) hosted at the plaintiff’s Citrix facility. Using the software, the defendant was able to self-administer its Funds and client portfolios.
[4] After the first two years, the Agreement automatically renewed for an additional three year period. In the fall of 2015, an accounting dispute arose between the parties and the defendant gave notice that it would not be further renewing the Agreement. The plaintiff then issued invoices arising out of what it claimed to be inter alia, accounting errors and underbilling. The defendant refused to pay those invoices, and on October 22, 2015 the plaintiff terminated the Agreement.
[5] The plaintiff commenced this action under the Simplified Procedure for payment of three outstanding invoices. The defendant issued its own counterclaim for damages arising from the alleged wrongful termination of the Agreement.
[6] The trial of both the action and counterclaim proceeded before me on October 16-19, 2017 and I took my decision under reserve. These are my Reasons.
The Agreement
[7] According to the plaintiff’s president David Chan, the Agreement is essentially divided into two parts. The first part consists of a standard, pre-printed form which the plaintiff created and uses with all of its clients. The second part consists of various schedules that set out the specific services, timing and fees negotiated and agreed upon by the plaintiff and its clients.
[8] Clause 2 of the Agreement references the services to be provided by the plaintiff to the defendant in an attached Schedule “A” thereto. Those services are listed as:
● initial set-up of the defendant on the plaintiff’s central computing facility;
● access to the software hosted on the plaintiff’s central computing facility for self-administration by the defendant; and,
● assuming the defendant is a member in Fund Serve Net Work Inc., direct connection for transfers of ESG standard files to and from Fund Serve.
[9] Clause 4 of the Agreement references the fees due and owing for the services as set out in Schedule “C” attached thereto. That Schedule provides, inter alia, as follows (my emphasis in bold):
“The Services Fee for the initial term is $13,600.00 plus applicable taxes of $1,768.00, being $680.00 (GST) and $$1,068.00 (PST part of which will he blended with GST into HST when it comes into effect) to be adjusted from time to time as per the total Assets Under Administration (AUA) and the number of concurrent users licensed to access the software.
The Services Fee is payable in monthly instalments as set out later on in this Schedule and will be adjusted quarterly as per the quarterly average of the total AUA and number of concurrent users as appropriate.
The two (2) parts to the Services Fee arc the IAP Software Licence Fee (75%) and the Access Fee (25%). Hence the IAP Software Licence Fee portion is $10.200.00 and the Access Fee portion is $3,400.00 respectively (before applicable taxes and adjustments from time to time).
The base subscription is for a single user and additional concurrent users are charged as they are added by CLIENT.
Services Fee Formula
Services Fee = Minimum Amount + ‘”, (Assets Under Administration x Rate)
Where
Minimum Amount is an annual amount and equals to $4,800.00 per calendar year (before one-time setup charge and applicable taxes) for one ( 1) single user (for which there may be multiple authorized users) for AUA up to $10 Million, thereafter at 3.3 basis points (“bps") for AUA between $10 Million and $20 Million, 2.1 bps for AUA between $20 Million and $40 Million, 1.5 bps for $40 Million and S8O Million, and I bps for over $80 Million. (Additional users arc charged $3,600.00 per user per annum.) N.R. The Special Rates to be applied to CLIENT are set out under Rate, below and shall apply to the Service Period. (If rates for the Renewal Period are agreed upon, then the standard rates and Minimum Amount shall apply.)
Assets Under Administration (AUA) is the average quarterly total assets under administration being the average of the daily balance in the immediate past calendar quarter. (Fees charged over and above the Minimum Amount in prior quarters will not be adjusted because of lower AUA in latter periods).
Rate, is subject to the Minimum Amount, at 3.3 basis points (“bps”) for AUA between $10 Million and $20 Million. 2.1 bps for AUA between $20 Million and $40 Million. 1.5 bps for $40 Million and $80 Million, and 1 bps for over $80 Million. N.B. The Special Rates to be applied to CLIENT (Agilith Capital Inc.) for the Service Period shall be: up to $10 Million, 0.048%; from over $10 Million to $20 Million, 0.033%; from over $20 Million to $40 Million, 0.21%; and from $40 Million to $160 Million, 0.0033%. Unless rates are agreed for the Renewal Period, standard rates shall apply.
Number of Concurrent Users in the number of users who may access the software simultaneously and the additional levy to the Services Fee is $3,600.00 per annum for each additional concurrent user. (The split between IAP Software Licence Fee and the Access Fee under the Services Fee is 75/25.) N.B. The charge for the second concurrent user is waived for the first two years of the Service Period such that the additional $3,600.00 will commence in 2012.
N.B. The one-time installation charge of $3,600.00 has been waived.”
[10] Clause 5(a) of the Agreement requires the defendant to pay all fees “without deduction, delay or withholding of any kind.”
[11] Clause 5(b) of the Agreement allows the plaintiff to modify the fees in Schedule “C” on notice to the defendant, but if no notice is given then those fees continue during the automatic renewal period.
[12] Clause 12 of the Agreement allows the plaintiff to terminate the Agreement immediately on written notice if the defendant “breaches any provision of the Agreement.” Upon termination of the Agreement, all fees are accelerated and immediately due and payable, and each party is obligated to return or destroy all confidential information and related documentation in the others possession or control.
[13] The Agreement contains an Entire Agreement provision at Clause 16(b) therein.
The Defendant’s Funds
[14] As at the date of the Agreement, the defendant offered its investors participation in only one fund, namely its North American Diversified Fund (“the NAD Fund”). According to the defendant’s director Andrea Horan, the defendant entered into the Agreement with a view of using the plaintiff’s software for a new fund product known as the Managed Account Fund, which allowed clients to invest within registered accounts in individual securities. The Managed Account Fund was launched in January 2010, and the Agreement was backdated to coincide with this event.
[15] In or around May 2011, the defendant offered an additional fund option for its investors known as the Private Client Services Fund, which was a low margin business option.
[16] In or around April 2014, the Managed Account Fund was replaced with the Long Only Fund. Clients would now hold units in the Long Only Fund which itself directly held the various securities.
[17] These funds and their commencement dates are not disputed by the plaintiff. As set out hereinafter, it is the plaintiff’s position that regardless of whether any fund actually existed as at the date of the Agreement, the scope and terms of the Agreement permitted fees to be charged using the AUA of all funds during the life of the Agreement.
The Managed Account Fund
[18] As per Schedule “C” of the Agreement, in addition to the minimum annual amount of fees, the plaintiff was entitled to a percentage of the defendant’s total amount of Assets Under Administration (“AUA”) if and when the AUA reached at least $10,000,000.00. A specific formula thereafter applied as the AUA rose from $10,000,000.00 upward.
[19] According to Horan, TD Securities was the brokerage/custodian firm administrating the NAD Fund from the outset. The Managed Account Fund and the Private Client Fund were both being administered by TD Waterhouse as the broker/custodian. As stated above, Horan’s evidence is that the defendant entered into the Agreement to coincide with the launch of the defendant’s Managed Account Fund, and that was the only fund for which the plaintiff’s software was required for administration purposes. Simply put, according to Horan, the NAD Fund was always outside the scope of the Agreement. Even though the NAD Fund existed as at the date of the agreement, the plaintiff’s software was never required for, and was never used for, the NAD Fund.
[20] The Managed Account Fund’s AUA reached $10,000,000.00 in our around July 2013. On October 8, 2013, the defendant’s director of operations Choi Lan Lee (“Lee”) contacted the plaintiff’s chief technology officer Ames Wong (“Wong”) and advised as follows:
“On another note, IAS may be under billing us as our asset is over $10 m now and according to the contract, we should be paying a little more than the minimum. We would also appreciate a little faster service as it is always taking more than 10 minutes for each modeling run. I believe we talked about this a while back and wonder if you have a chance to look into it. Call me when you have a chance as it has always been a discussion over the phone.”
[21] It is clear that, in the defendant’s opinion, once the Managed Account Fund’s AUA surpassed $10,000,000.00, the plaintiff was entitled to its additional fees. That position was made very clear in the above email. Wong never provided a substantive response to the defendant’s position. In cross-examination, Wong testified that he forwarded the contents of the subject email to the plaintiff’s vice-president and chief financial officer Rocky Chan (“Chan”), but unfortunately Chan never took any steps whatsoever in response. Chan was not called as a witness at the trial of these proceedings.
Concurrent User Access
[22] According to Schedule “C” of the Agreement, further, additional fees are due from the defendant based upon the number of “concurrent users licensed to access the plaintiff’s software”. Specifically, the “base subscription” is for one single user and additional concurred users result in additional fees as those users are added by the defendant.
[23] The term “concurrent user” is not specifically defined in the Agreement. Schedule “C” defines “number of concurrent users” as a number of users who may access the software simultaneously, and an additional fee of $3,600.00 per annum is charged for each additional concurrent user. Of note, the plaintiff waived any charges for a second concurrent user for the first two years of the Agreement “such that the additional $3,600.00 will commence in 2012.”
[24] There was very confusing evidence given by the witnesses with respect to whether and how a concurrent user was authorized to access the plaintiff’s software. Chan testified that there are two “log in security levels”. An individual must be authorized to log into the plaintiff’s Citrix server, and then log in a second time to access the plaintiff’s software. Several emails have been produced by the parties which confirm:
● on February 9, 2010 (when the parties were negotiating the Agreement), the plaintiff provided the defendant with “two logins”, one for the Citrix server and one for the Portfolio System” (i.e. the plaintiff’s software).
● on August 6, 2010, the plaintiff provided the defendant with two passwords for a “first user” and “second user” to the server (i.e not to the Portfolio System).
● on August 10, 2010, the defendant requested access to a “second user” as it had already been provided with the Citrix login but did not know if it had the Portfolio System login. The following day, the defendant followed up on its request to have “the second user set up for us.”
● in early August 2011, the defendant had difficulty logging in two users to the plaintiff’s Citrix Server at the same time. In response, the plaintiff advised that if the defendant was “using the same user” when the second person logged in, such a step would disconnect the first user; and
● on December 11, 2013, Wong advised Lee that the additional charge under Schedule “C” of the Agreement is based upon the number of concurrent users and not based upon logins to the Citrix Server or Portfolio System.
[25] In cross-examinations, Chan admitted that during the last four years of the Agreement, only one login was used by the defendant for the Portfolio System. However, Chan further testified that two portfolio logins were provided by the plaintiff to the defendant, and as such there were two concurrent users.
New Client Statements
[26] Horan testified that up to early 2014, the defendant only used the plaintiff’s software for the calculation of performance fees and the reconciliation of trades for the Managed Account Fund. The defendant was looking to have monthly statements created which were more customized and uniform for all its clients. At that time, only data relating to the Managed Account Fund was being uploaded into the plaintiff’s Portfolio System.
[27] At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff prepared a quote dated April 21, 2014 for the development of a new client statement in accordance with the defendant’s wishes. The parties agreed to proceed and the new client statement was ultimately created.
[28] In order to provide the customized, uniform statements to its clients, the defendant then uploaded data relating to the balance of its funds into the plaintiff’s Portfolio System. According to Horan, this was simply a data upload for the purpose of creating statements. No other client administration services were used or accessed for the defendant’s funds.
The Disputes Arise
[29] From the outset of the Agreement, the plaintiff never charged any additional fees to the defendant, be it for the AUA exceeding $10,000,000.00 or for the existence of concurrent users.
[30] Having been automatically renewed once, the Agreement was set to expire at the end of 2015. According to Wong, in or around late August 2015, he began reviewing the defendant’s account and advised Horan on the phone that the plaintiff had discovered that it had inadvertently omitted to bill the defendant for additional fees triggered by the defendant’s AUA exceeding $10,000,000.00.
[31] Horan testified that she attended a meeting with the plaintiff on September 9, 2015, and that during that meeting she was told for the first time by the plaintiff of the alleged underbilling. Horan stated that the alleged debt owed to the plaintiff for additional fees was in fact used as leverage by the plaintiff to try and negotiate a further renewal of the Agreement.
[32] On September 29, 2015, Wong delivered a proposal to Horan to further renew the Agreement. As part of the proposal, the plaintiff would issue a “credit memo” for the underbilled additional fees (due to “Rocky’s oversight”) totaling $16,287.23 as of June 2015.
[33] In response, Horan rejected Wong’s proposal and provided the plaintiff with the required 90 days’ notice of the defendant’s intention to not renew the Agreement. The plaintiff acknowledged receipt of same, and on October 1, 2015 issued an invoice in an amount of $20,860.46 for an “adjustment to monthly instalment amount as per Schedule “C” for the period Q1 2013 through Q3 2015”. Being now in possession of the data relating to all the defendant’s funds, the invoice calculated the plaintiff’s fees based upon the AUA of all the defendant’s funds over $10,000,000.00, and not just the Managed Account Fund.
The Agreement is Terminated
[34] By letter dated October 7, 2015, the plaintiff requested that its invoice be paid along with the yet to be issued invoice for the last 2015 quarter of the defendant’s AUA, and proposed an alternative offer whereby the Agreement would be further extended. The defendant refused both options, and by letter dated October 22, 2015, the plaintiff terminated the Agreement on the basis that the defendant was in default of its obligations.
[35] The plaintiff thereafter delivered two additional invoices dated November 2, 2015 and November 9, 2015 respectively. The first additional invoice sought payment of the additional AUA for the last quarter of 2015 together with (a) data download charges and (b) database maintenance charges at the non-contract rate of $75.00 per day and $500.00 per week respectively. These amounts are not set out in the Agreement, and represent fees charged by the plaintiff for allowing the defendant access to the plaintiff’s Citrix Server and Portfolio System post-termination.
[36] The second additional invoice was in the amount of $16,272.00 and represented four annual charges of $3,600.00 (plus HST) for the use of a second concurrent user as per the terms of Schedule “C” of the Agreement.
[37] The defendant did not pay any of the three invoices. The plaintiff commenced this proceeding. The defendant’s counterclaim seeks damages for the additional costs incurred by the defendant in trying to recover from the alleged wrongful termination of the Agreement and mitigate its losses through internal efforts and the costs of securing a new software company.
Issue #1 Is the plaintiff entitled to payment of additional fees for the share in the defendant’s AUA?
[38] There is no dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant are both sophisticated commercial parties. Schedule “C” of the Agreement was negotiated. Horan testified that she reviewed the entire agreement before signing it.
[39] The plaintiff submits that what the defendant paid for was access to the Portfolio System. How and whether the defendant used the software was up to the defendant, but the purpose of the Agreement was to provide the defendant with the ability to self-administer its funds and portfolios.
[40] While the term “Assets Under Administration” is not specifically defined in the Agreement, the Agreement is nevertheless clear that the resulting additional fees are based upon the “total AUA” exceeding $10,000,000.00.
[41] The defendant was adamant that the inclusion of the term AUA related solely to the Managed Account Fund. It was only through the creation of the new client statement that the plaintiff even learned about the existence of the defendant’s other funds. The defendant argues that even if the plaintiff had abided by the Agreement and properly invoiced the defendant for additional fees on a quarterly basis, the plaintiff would still not have had access to the defendant’s other funds until after that data was uploaded in the spring of 2014. Further, when the issue was brought to Wong’s attention in October 2013, the plaintiff never responded and thus never even sought payment of the additional fees for the Managed Account Fund exceeding AUA of $10,000,000.00.
[42] In my view, the starting point for the disposition of Issue #1 is to review the terms of the Agreement. I am mandated to read the Agreement as a whole, and give the words used therein their ordinary and grammatical meaning consistent with the surrounding circumstances known to both parties at the time the contract was formed. I am guided by the instructions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Salah v. Timothy's Coffees of the World Inc. 2010 ONCA 673:
“The basic principles of commercial contractual interpretation may be summarized as follows. When interpreting a contract, the court aims to determine the intentions of the parties in accordance with the language used in the written document and presumes that the parties have intended what they have said. The court construes the contract as a whole, in a manner that gives meaning to all of its terms, and avoids an interpretation that would render one or more of its terms ineffective. In interpreting the contract, the court must have regard to the objective evidence of the “factual matrix” or context underlying the negotiation of the contract, but not the subjective evidence of the intention of the parties. The court should interpret the contract so as to accord with sound commercial principles and good business sense, and avoid commercial absurdity. If the court finds that the contract is ambiguous, it may then resort to extrinsic evidence to clear up the ambiguity. Where a transaction involves the execution of several documents that form parts of a larger composite whole - like a complex commercial transaction - and each agreement is entered into on the faith of the others being executed, then assistance in the interpretation of one agreement may be drawn from the related agreements.”
[43] As held by my colleague Justice Stinson in Graillen Holdings Inc. v. Orangeville 2016 ONSC 3678, when considering the surrounding circumstances of a commercial contract, the Court ought to know the contract’s commercial purpose, genesis, background, context, and the market in which the parties operate.
[44] It is important to note that at the time of negotiating the Agreement, there were two funds in place: the NAD Fund and the Management Account Fund. If the defendant intended to restrict the application of calculation of additional fees to the Managed Account Fund’s AUA only, it could have easily done so. The Agreement does not carve out or identify any specific fund, and references the defendant’s “total AUA” for the purpose of calculating additional fees.
[45] I do not see the need to look outside of the terms of the Agreement and assess the defendant’s subjective intentions that AUA was to mean something specific, and not general. The defendant had an opportunity to do just that before it signed the Agreement. The plaintiff admittedly never cared about how many funds were being managed or administered by the defendant. The terms of the Agreement required additional fees to be paid once the defendant’s total AUA exceeded $10,000,000.00. As stated, there were two funds in play at the time the Agreement was signed, and I see no reason why the plain meaning of the Agreement should not govern in the circumstances.
[46] To the extent that the defendant takes the position that Wong’s silence amounted to a waiver of the plaintiff’s right to charge additional fees (presumably on the AUA of any fund including the Managed Account Fund), clause 16(d) of the Agreement provides that no waiver of any provision in the Agreement is valid unless such a waiver is made in writing. That clause is a full answer to the defendant’s argument.
[47] The defendant also raised the doctrine of laches as an equitable defence to the plaintiff’s claim. As held by Justice Perell in Barker v. Barker 2017 ONSC 3397, the doctrine of laches is an equitable defence that “denies an equitable remedy because of the plaintiff’s harmful delay in seeking that equitable remedy.” In order to defeat an equitable claim, a defendant must demonstrate that a plaintiff, through its delay in commencing the prosecution of a legal proceeding, has either (a) acquiesced in the defendant’s conduct, or (b) caused the defendant to alter his/her position in reasonable reliance on the plaintiff’s acceptance of the status quo.
[48] To begin, I do not find the plaintiff’s claim for additional fees based upon the defendant’s total AUA to be equitable in nature. They are rooted in straightforward breach of contract. Further, I do not find the presence of a substantive delay on the part of the plaintiff in its commencement or prosecution of this legal proceeding.
[49] Accordingly, I find the answer to Issue #1 is “Yes”, and I award the plaintiff damages in the amount of $16,242.19 (which sum was calculated by the plaintiff to not include overcharged historical data).
Issue #2 Is the plaintiff entitled to payment of additional fees for more than one concurrent user?
[50] In its submissions, the plaintiff stated that the issue of concurrent users “became convoluted over the course of the trial because of the method of login.” This is an understatement.
[51] The provisions of Schedule “C” relating to the concurrent users are ambiguous and difficult to understand. It appears that a concurrent user is a user who may access the software (i.e. the second login stage) simultaneously with another user. The plaintiff submits that once the defendant requested the additional Citrix server login, the additional fee was incurred and was in fact waived for the first two years of the Agreement. However, the evidence does not necessarily support this position.
[52] As stated, in order for a user to be concurrent under the Agreement, that user must access the software simultaneously with another user. A review of an August 3, 2011 email from the plaintiff to Lee is confusing:
“Hi Lan,
If you’re using the same user and Andrea logs in when you are also in, it will disconnect your user. It’s recommended that you first log off so she could go in without dropping your session. Your user has been logged off, you can go back in now.”
[53] If the defendant was provided with concurrent user access, why would one user be disconnected when the entire purpose of the concurrent user is to access the software simultaneously? Further, Chan admitted on cross-examination that in the last four years of the term of the Agreement, there was only one login used to access the Portfolio System (i.e. software). While the plaintiff submits that the charge for additional fees does not relate to whether or not the two Citrix users do access the Portfolio System simultaneously, based upon the above email, it does not appear that they could access the software simultaneously.
[54] In my view, the evidence falls short of establishing the plaintiff’s interpretation of “concurrent user” in Schedule “C” of the Agreement. As a result, the answer to Issue #2 is “No” and the plaintiff’s claim for payment of the invoice for concurrent users in the amount of $16,272.00 is dismissed.
Issue #3 Is the plaintiff entitled to payment of additional fees for the post-termination download and database maintenance charges?
[55] As I have found the answer to Issue #1 is “yes”, the termination of the Agreement was therefore lawful. The Agreement provides that the defendant must pay the plaintiff all fees due under the Agreement without deduction, delay or withholding. A breach of any provision in the Agreement entitles the plaintiff to terminate the Agreement immediately.
[56] That said, Chan testified that the plaintiff did not cut off the defendant’s access to the software and continued to service the defendant, performing nightly data downloads and nightly database maintenance. The plaintiff then unilaterally chose to invoice the defendant for those services, which Horan admitted were used by the defendant during the initial post-termination period.
[57] There is no basis under the Agreement for charging the defendant for such services. In fact, clause 12(d) requires the plaintiff to return or destroy all confidential information to the defendant upon termination. This would obviously include all of the data for the various funds administered by the defendant. The plaintiff chose not to comply with clause 12(d) of the Agreement, and even if such steps arguably benefitted the defendant, in my view the plaintiff did so at its peril.
[58] The plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment also fails. It is trite to state that a cause of action for unjust enrichment has three elements:
(a) an enrichment of the defendant;
(b) a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff; and
(c) an absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment.
[59] The plaintiff argues that the defendant benefited from the post-termination services to the detriment of the plaintiff as those services were not paid for by the defendant. That may arguably be correct, but I fail to see the absence of a juristic reason in the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff is wrong when it argues that “there is no relevant contract governing the relationship.” On the contrary, the Agreement not only exists, but provides for what is to happen upon termination. Clause 12(d) was part of the pre-printed standard form contract drafted by the plaintiff. If the Agreement did not provide for the ability of the plaintiff to charge for post-termination services, that void cannot stand as the foundation for the absence of a juristic reason.
[60] Accordingly, the answer to Issue #3 is “No”. The plaintiff’s claim for addition fees for data download and database management are dismissed. The only charge which I am allowing under that specific invoice is for the acceleration of the remaining regular fee instalments for November and December, 2015 totaling $800.00 plus HST.
Issue #4 Is the defendant to be awarded damages for its counterclaim?
[61] I have already found the termination of the Agreement to be lawful based upon the plaintiff’s right to demand payment of the additional fees for the defendant’s AUA surpassing $10,000,000.00. As such, the Agreement was not wrongfully terminated, and there is no basis for the defendant’s counterclaim.
[62] In addition, most, if not all, of the efforts undertaken by the defendant after the termination of the Agreement would have been incurred in any event given that the defendant had chosen not to renew the Agreement.
[63] The Counterclaim is therefore dismissed.
Costs
[64] In my view, success has been divided. If the parties take a different view, I would first urge them to exert the necessary efforts to try and resolve the costs of this action. If such efforts prove unsuccessful, they may serve and file written costs submissions (totaling no more than four pages including a Costs Outline) in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) the plaintiff may serve and file its costs submissions within 10 business days of the release of these Reasons; and
(b) the defendant shall thereafter have an additional 10 business days from the receipt of the plaintiff’s costs submissions to deliver its responding costs submissions.
Diamond J.
Released: November 7, 2017
CITATION: The Investment Administration Solution v Agilith Capital, 2017 ONSC 6537
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-543620
DATE: 20171107
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATION SOLUTION INC.
Plaintiff
– and –
AGILITH CAPITAL INC.
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION
Diamond J.
Released: November 7, 2017