Scott Fairley

The plaintiff, an unsophisticated lender, brought a motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid loans made to the defendants.

The defendants argued the acknowledgment of debt was unconscionable due to a 60 percent interest rate and lack of legal representation, and denied fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no unconscionability as the defendant had proposed high interest rates initially and refused legal counsel.

The court also found the defendant engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the company's finances to induce the initial loans, awarding the plaintiff the principal amounts plus 60 percent interest.

The plaintiff, Graydon Cragg, funded and established a financial services business through his corporation, 1350369 Ontario Inc. The defendants, Tom Jarvis and Darren O'Halloran, managed the business and developed its client base.

In 2005, the defendants abruptly left the business, taking the client files and staff to set up a competing operation.

The court found that Jarvis and O'Halloran were employees and fiduciaries of the plaintiff's business, not independent contractors.

By taking the book of business without compensating the plaintiff, they breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The court directed a business valuation to determine damages.

Residents of a life lease seniors’ residence sought a declaration restoring a contractual rule designating their floor as “pet‑free.” The residents argued the housing corporation breached the life lease agreement and failed to act in good faith when it amended the rules to remove the pet prohibition.

The court held that the agreement expressly authorized the corporation to amend the rules and regulations, subject only to consultation with the residents’ advisory association while retaining final decision‑making authority.

On the evidentiary record, the corporation consulted residents and considered objections before confirming the change.

The court found the decision was not arbitrary and was made in good faith.

Following the dismissal of its application for the enforcement of letters rogatory, the applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of law.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the applicant was a commercial entity pursuing its own private interests in foreign litigation, not a public interest litigant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondent but reduced the quantum claimed from $32,647.71 to $18,189.46, noting that the respondent had already received a substantial costs award on an earlier, nearly identical application.

The applicant, an American pharmaceutical company, sought to enforce amended letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court to compel testimony and documentary evidence from the respondent, a federal Crown corporation, for use in foreign litigation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it enjoyed Crown immunity.

The court held that the presumption of Crown immunity under s. 17 of the federal Interpretation Act prevented the enforcement of letters rogatory against a Crown agent, as the provincial Evidence Act does not bind the federal Crown.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the legal standard for enforcing letters rogatory, as the evidence sought was not necessary for trial and had already been obtained through an Access to Information Act request.

The application was dismissed.