Sean F. Dunphy

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for breaching a permanent injunction prohibiting him from publishing defamatory statements about the plaintiff.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally published numerous defamatory posts on WeChat, breaching the clear order of which he had actual notice.

The court found the defendant guilty of civil contempt.

Although the plaintiff sought a 90-day jail term, the court declined to order incarceration, noting the defendant's change of heart and first-time offender status.

Instead, the court imposed a $35,000 fine, awarded full indemnity costs, ordered the deletion of the posts, required a public apology, and issued a further permanent injunction.

The moving party purchaser sought damages or a $350,000 abatement of the purchase price, alleging the court-appointed Receiver breached an Asset Purchase Agreement and a Share Purchase Agreement by failing to act in good faith and use best efforts to preserve a cannabis license.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Receiver had no authority over the excluded cannabis assets under its appointment order, the purchaser failed to discover the license's expiry date during its own due diligence, and the Receiver fully complied with its contractual obligations to negotiate and assist with a change of control.

Following the approval of an amended restructuring proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, two limited partner applicant groups sought costs for their participation in the proceedings.

The court declined to award costs, noting the Commercial List practice of generally not awarding costs in restructuring matters.

The court emphasized that restructuring is not a classic adversarial proceeding and that stakeholders should not be discouraged from participating by the threat of costs.

No order as to costs was made for the bankruptcy proceeding, though the court left open the possibility of addressing costs in the related civil proceedings if funds flow back to the partnership.

The debtors, YG Limited Partnership and YSL Residences Inc., sought court approval for version 2 of Amended Proposal #3 under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, following the court's previous rejection of an earlier proposal.

The amended proposal addressed the court's prior concerns by treating related party claims as equity, ensuring construction lien claims did not dilute unsecured creditors' recoveries, and providing that any surplus funds would be returned to the limited partnership.

The court found the amended proposal to be reasonable, calculated to benefit the general body of creditors, and advanced in good faith, and therefore granted the order approving the proposal.

The debtors, YG Limited Partnership and YSL Residences Inc., sought court approval of a bankruptcy proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Two groups of limited partners opposed the proposal, arguing it was not reasonable, was advanced in bad faith, and improperly treated related-party advances as debt rather than equity.

The court refused to approve the proposal, finding that the related-party claims were equity claims, the proposal sponsor had improperly induced unaffected lien claimants to vote as affected creditors, and the general partner had breached its fiduciary duties by advancing a proposal designed to benefit related parties at the expense of the limited partners.

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion for directions regarding an offer to purchase a large Muskoka property en bloc.

The original buy-out order directed the Receiver to sever the property to allow departing members of the corporation to be paid their share while remaining members kept a retained parcel.

After four years of delays and significant expenses, the severance process was incomplete.

The court found it had jurisdiction to vary the original order due to materially changed circumstances.

The court directed the Receiver to halt the severance process and accept the en bloc purchase agreement, which had the support of the vast majority of stakeholders and represented fair market value.

The Bank of Montreal applied for a receiver over a group of fitness clubs (the Crunch Group) following defaults on credit facilities.

The parties reached an agreement where the debtors' nominee would purchase the debt and security.

The Bank accepted the offer but subsequently refused to provide a fully executed copy of the agreement, causing the purchaser to lose financing and fail to close on the scheduled date.

The court found the Bank's actions, including abruptly closing the debtors' bank accounts and unreasonably refusing to deliver the executed agreement, breached the duty of good faith.

The court ordered the Bank to close the transaction.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses against a former financial advisor who had sold his book of business to them seven years prior.

The court found the non-competition clause to be overbroad and unenforceable, but upheld the non-solicitation clause as reasonable and severable.

Finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, the court granted a limited injunction prohibiting the defendant from soliciting his former clients and using the plaintiffs' business records.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) over a Scarborough property owned by the defendants, alleging that funds advanced as unsecured debt for a different development were diverted to the Scarborough property, creating a constructive trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue regarding an interest in land.

The court also found that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo to avoid disrupting the defendants' ongoing redevelopment efforts.

The plaintiffs were successful in their wrongful dismissal actions against the defendant and sought full indemnity costs capped at $50,000 each under Rule 76.12.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant argued the costs claimed were disproportionate and excessive.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding the cases were simple, materially identical, and handled by common counsel, which should have resulted in substantial efficiencies.

The court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs and awarded a total of $50,000 inclusive of HST for both claims combined, plus disbursements, resulting in $26,117.08 for each plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs in a dispute over an alleged real estate joint venture.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, specifically regarding guarantees and paid architectural services.

The court also determined that damages were an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favoured discharging the CPL.

The CPL was discharged, subject to a condition requiring the defendants to provide 45 days' advance notice before transferring or encumbering the subject properties.

The Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of its activities, approval of a sales process for two properties, and an order requiring a tenant to disclose tenancy documentation.

The court declined to grant a generic approval of the Receiver's activities, finding it unnecessary.

The court ordered the tenant to comply with its disclosure obligations, rejecting the tenant's confidentiality objections.

The court approved the proposed sales process and listing agreements, subject to conditions including a time-limited sealing order for appraisals and the circulation of redacted listing proposals to the parties.

The applicant underwriters sought a declaration that the respondent issuer, Aphria Inc., was required to pay their ongoing legal fees in defending a proposed securities class action.

The class action alleged that the underwriters engaged in market manipulation prior to a prospectus offering.

Aphria argued that the indemnity in the underwriting agreement did not cover intentional wrongdoing.

The court held that the plain language of the indemnity clause required Aphria to pay defence costs for any claims arising from the underwriters' professional services, subject only to an exclusion if a court makes a final, non-appealable determination of fraud or willful misconduct.

As no such determination had been made, the application was granted.

The appellant creditor appealed a decision upholding the Trustee's disallowance of its unsecured claim in the bankruptcy.

The claim was based on a promissory note and subsequent agreement, but no payments or acknowledgments had been made for over two years prior to the bankruptcy, rendering it statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that a statute-barred claim, being unenforceable at law, is not a claim to which the bankrupt is 'subject' under section 121(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and is therefore not provable in bankruptcy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought the release of escrow funds following the sale of a distressed condominium project.

The dispute centered on whether the Minutes of Settlement required the property owner to pay property taxes that accrued prior to closing.

The court applied principles of commercial contractual interpretation and found that the plain language of the agreement only required the owner to continue paying operating expenses it was already paying at the time of execution.

Since property taxes had been deferred for months prior to the agreement, the owner was not obligated to pay them.

The court ordered the disputed funds released to the moving party.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) over several properties allegedly purchased with profits from a landscaping business he co-founded with the individual defendant.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which the court denied due to their failure to advance the proceeding or file evidence.

The court found the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding an interest in land based on claims of partnership breach, oppression, and constructive trust.

Applying the Dhunna criteria, the court concluded the equities favoured granting the CPL to protect the plaintiff's interests.

The plaintiffs, two long-term employees, were laid off by the defendant employer in early 2020 due to supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in China.

The plaintiffs treated the lay-offs as constructive dismissals and brought summary judgment motions for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer did not have an implied right to lay off the employees, and even if it did, the lay-offs exceeded 35 weeks, resulting in deemed terminations under the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded both plaintiffs 22 months of reasonable notice.

The defendants filed a request under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's 120-page statement of claim, arguing the issues had already been litigated before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1, finding that the res judicata argument required referencing extrinsic evidence, which is inappropriate for a Rule 2.1 request unless the conclusion is plain and obvious.

The court directed the defendants to bring a formal motion on notice.

The plaintiff, a teacher, sued his employer school board and several co-workers for damages arising from alleged workplace discrimination and defamatory tweets.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement.

Applying the Weber test, the court found that the essential character of the dispute concerned the employer's obligation to provide a harassment-free workplace and the application of workplace policies, which were inferentially incorporated into the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against him arising from a three-way motor vehicle accident.

The defendant brought the motion before submitting to discovery and relied solely on a lawyer's double-hearsay affidavit rather than providing his own direct evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the record was insufficiently developed to permit a fair and just determination of the issues on the merits, and drew an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to provide his own evidence.