Scott Azzopardi

This complex motion involved the defendants, Dr. Saad and the Canadian Companies, seeking to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and receivership orders previously granted to the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the political motivations behind the litigation and the legitimate commercial relationships between the parties.

The plaintiffs sought to continue and vary the orders.

The court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the Mareva order against Dr. Saad, continuing it.

However, the Norwich and Receivership orders against the Canadian Companies were set aside due to non-material but impactful non-disclosure that changed the factual landscape, making the orders overly broad.

The court also addressed the application of the deemed undertaking rule for documents obtained through Norwich orders.

Following an appeal of a Master's order extending the time to set the action down for trial, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that there was divided success on the appeal, as the appellants successfully challenged the Master's reasoning but the respondents successfully affirmed the ultimate outcome.

Balancing the factors under Rule 57.01, the court ordered that all parties bear their own costs.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision granting the plaintiffs an extension of time to set their medical malpractice action down for trial under Rule 48.14(7).

The Superior Court found that the Master erred in law by applying a 'contextual analysis' that relaxed the requirement to meet both parts of the conjunctive test for delay, and erred in fact by relying on evidence outside the record.

However, exercising its own discretion under s. 134 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Court determined the motion on the record and found the plaintiffs had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The Court affirmed the 12-month extension but set aside the Master's costs award, ordering no costs for the motion.

The plaintiffs moved for an order granting additional time to set their medical malpractice action down for trial, five years after its commencement.

The motion proceeded as a status hearing under Rule 48.14, requiring the plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The court considered the explanation for delay, the alleged non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, and the overarching principle of resolving disputes on their merits.

The court found the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, particularly given the complex medical issues, the death of the lead plaintiff, and difficulties in securing expert evidence.

The court was not convinced that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The motion to extend time was granted, and a timetable was to be established.

The applicants, Calo Holdings Ltd. and Imperial Precast Corp., sought an order equalizing shareholder accounts and other remedies against the respondent, 2347186 Ontario Inc., in the context of a joint venture to operate a precast business through two corporations (2057461 Ontario Inc. and Northern Precast Corp.).

The applicants claimed Imperial was owed over $800,000 for contributions and sought payment from 205 or, alternatively, from 234 based on oppressive conduct.

The court dismissed the application, finding no agreement for overall equalization between the shareholders outside of the specific shareholder agreements for each corporation.

The court also determined that 234 did not owe money to Calo or Imperial, and therefore, 234's refusal to pay did not constitute oppressive conduct under the Business Corporations Act.

Imperial was deemed an unsecured creditor of the respective corporations, not 234.

The plaintiffs in a competition law class action regarding a price-fixing conspiracy for lithium ion batteries brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes and approval of a notice plan.

The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the LG Chem defendants for USD $3.9 million.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing an application.

The Court of Appeal reversed the application decision.

As a result, the costs order awarded to the respondent in the amount of $45,000 was set aside, and costs in the application were awarded to the appellant on a partial indemnity basis in the same amount, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant purchased a cottage property through an online auction conducted by the respondent auction company.

After the high bid was accepted and a purchase and sale contract executed, the sellers refused to close.

The appellant subsequently negotiated a second purchase and sale contract directly with the sellers and the sale closed.

The auction company claimed entitlement to the buyer's premium from the appellant's escrow deposit, arguing the two contracts were effectively one continuous agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the buyer's premium was not payable when the sale failed to close due to the seller's default, and that the subsequent direct purchase did not trigger the obligation to pay the premium under the auction contract.