S. Erskine

The plaintiffs, two portfolio managers, sued their former employer, an investment firm, claiming entitlement to $1.38 million in performance fees earned by the fund they managed.

The plaintiffs argued their employment agreements implicitly included these fees based on industry standards, or alternatively, that they were entitled to them under quantum meruit or an oral agreement.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the employment agreements unambiguously excluded performance fees, which were instead governed by a separate arrangement with a senior portfolio manager.

The court also rejected the quantum meruit claim as the plaintiffs were fully compensated under their contracts, and found the oral agreement was conditional on improved behaviour that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate.

A late claim for discretionary bonuses was also dismissed as it was not properly pleaded.

At a Commercial List case conference in a complex civil fraud action involving numerous defendants and related proceedings, the court addressed litigation management issues including settlements, expert reports, discoveries, and trial planning.

Several defendants had reached settlements with the plaintiff.

Discoveries were complete and the matter was ready for trial.

The parties proposed an electronic trial process, which the court approved, directing that the plaintiff initially fund the infrastructure costs but permitting those costs to qualify as allowable disbursements for later costs determination.

The court also endorsed a streamlined trial timetable expected to shorten the originally estimated trial length.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action, the court assessed the costs payable to the successful defendants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs had settled costs with the Accountant Defendants for $550,000.

The court reviewed the bills of costs submitted by the Lawyer Defendants, the Katz Defendants, and the Leikin Group Inc. The court made several reductions to the amounts claimed, noting issues with top-heavy staffing, excessive time spent on documentary discovery, and duplication of effort.

The court ultimately awarded substantial indemnity costs totaling $2,340,485.75 across the three remaining sets of defendants.

In a Commercial List case conference, the court addressed procedural issues arising during case management of complex banking litigation.

A related action commenced by another party against the plaintiff bank had not been disclosed at an earlier case conference, prompting the court to require an explanation and direct counsel to attend a further appointment to address potential motions and case coordination.

The court also addressed discovery disputes, including requests to examine additional representatives and disagreements about whether discovery rights had been exhausted.

Timetables were set for written motion materials regarding discovery disputes, interrogatories, expert reports, and a forensic accounting report.

The court emphasized the importance of transparency in case management and minimizing interlocutory motions in complex litigation.

The plaintiffs, selling shareholders in a family-owned group of companies, brought an action against the non-selling shareholders, the companies' lawyers, and accountants.

They alleged breach of fiduciary duty, oppression, and knowing assistance arising from a share redemption transaction.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose material information regarding the potential sale of a core asset to a third party at a higher value.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the share redemption was a product of self-interested negotiations where both sides had independent advice.

No ad hoc fiduciary duty was owed by the non-selling shareholders, lawyers, or accountants to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' expectations were not reasonable under the oppression remedy.

Following dismissal of a motion brought by a defendant, the court addressed the costs of the motion.

The responding parties sought partial indemnity costs, including a substantial claim by certain defendants who had not delivered a costs outline at the hearing as required by Rule 57.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that failure to provide a costs outline does not automatically bar recovery of costs because s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act preserves judicial discretion.

However, the absence of a timely costs outline and the excessive amount claimed justified a significant reduction.

The court fixed costs payable to one set of defendants at $4,000 and to the plaintiff at $2,500.