Sean M. Sullivan

This addendum to reasons on undertakings and refusals motions addresses Delta Plus Group's claim of litigation privilege over Refusal No. 10, which arose during the examination for discovery.

The court found that Delta failed to provide firsthand evidence from the document's creator to establish that the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, as required for litigation privilege.

Consequently, the court ordered Delta to answer the question.

In a complex commercial dispute stemming from a Share Purchase Agreement and consulting agreements, both the plaintiffs (the Dentes and related entities) and the defendants (Delta Plus Group and its subsidiaries) brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery.

The court addressed various issues including the relevance of financial information, the accessibility of manual journal entries, the sufficiency of particulars for damage claims, and the assertion of litigation privilege.

The court ordered some productions and dismissed others, emphasizing the principles of relevance and proportionality in discovery.

Given the mixed results, the court also ordered that each party bear their own costs and allowed for further limited examinations for discovery.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike various claims in the statement of claim, including all claims by Unit Precast, the conspiracy claim against all moving defendants, and all claims against Lars Bergmann.

Additionally, Click + Clean sought to stay the action against it based on an arbitration clause.

The court struck all claims by Unit Precast without leave to amend, and struck RH20's conspiracy claim and claims against Lars Bergmann with leave to amend.

The motion to stay the action against Click + Clean was dismissed, as conflicting forum selection clauses rendered the arbitration agreement inoperative, and the defendants' act of bringing a motion to strike constituted attornment to the court's jurisdiction.

The applicant trustee sought directions to wind up a trust held for a beneficiary residing in Florida, pay the proceeds to a Florida guardian, and receive compensation and costs.

The beneficiary's mother challenged the court's jurisdiction, the validity of the trust, and the trustee's claims for compensation and costs.

The court found it had jurisdiction, upheld the validity of the trust, dispensed with a formal passing of accounts, and ordered the trust wound up with proceeds paid to a Florida guardian.

The trustee was awarded compensation and substantial indemnity costs payable from the trust.

The plaintiff and defendant are siblings disputing the estate of their late mother, who died leaving over $21 million in assets.

The mother had historically treated her children equally in her estate planning.

In May 2013, she executed a new will leaving 75% of her estate to the defendant and 25% to the plaintiff.

Subsequently, between August 2013 and September 2014, the mother executed numerous documents that effectively transferred all her wealth to the defendant, primarily through a joint investment account with a right of survivorship, and disinherited the plaintiff entirely.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of the May 2013 will and the subsequent documents, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found that the mother had testamentary capacity throughout.

However, the court concluded that the post-August 2013 documents and inter vivos gifts were procured through the defendant's undue influence and were therefore invalid.

The court upheld the May 2013 will as valid and ordered that the assets transferred to the defendant be held in a resulting trust for the estate, to be distributed 75% to the defendant and 25% to the plaintiff.

The appellant, owner of a commercial property in Windsor, Ontario, sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action to add a claim for breach of statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act.

The motion judge refused the amendment on the grounds that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the claim was clearly statute-barred and that the proposed amendment would constitute an entirely new cause of action against different parties.

The court noted that the appellant had the option to amend its statement of claim in the first action instead.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive.

Strathan Corporation sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action (Second Strathan Action) to include a new claim for breach of statutory duty causing environmental contamination under the Environmental Protection Act.

The defendants opposed, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, untenable at law, and an abuse of process given a prior action (First Strathan Action) already addressing environmental contamination.

The court dismissed Strathan's motion, finding the new claim was a distinct cause of action, statute-barred by the two-year limitation period (as Strathan knew of the environmental claim since 2009 when it commenced the First Strathan Action), and constituted an abuse of process by attempting to graft a duplicative claim onto a separate action.

The court also rejected the argument that the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order requiring the corporate defendant to pay interim legal fees and disbursements of the plaintiffs in an oppression remedy action under s. 249(4) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge had ordered payment of all past and future legal fees to create a level playing field between minority shareholders and the corporation that had funded the defence.

The court held that the motion judge properly applied the governing test from Alles v. Maurice regarding merit of the claim and the complainants’ financial inability to pursue the action without assistance.

However, the court found a serious question regarding the correctness of awarding 100% reimbursement of past fees and unlimited future costs, noting that prior authorities typically limit interim cost awards to specific stages or purposes.

Because conflicting approaches existed and the issue was of broader importance for oppression remedy litigation, leave to appeal was granted and the underlying order was stayed pending appeal.