Shannon Beddoe

Following a four‑week civil trial involving wrongful dismissal, oppression claims, and counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff’s claim for damages exceeding $1 million was dismissed, although he succeeded in establishing that he had been terminated rather than having resigned.

The defendants’ $2 million counterclaim was largely unsuccessful except for minor reimbursement of approximately $300 in expenses.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found success divided but concluded the defendants were the more successful parties overall.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants, reduced to reflect divided success, unnecessary litigation steps, and excessive defence costs.

The plaintiff, former President of a private trust company, sued for wrongful dismissal and oppression after his employment ended amidst allegations of working for another company and improperly claiming expenses.

The court found that the plaintiff was terminated, not that he resigned.

However, the termination was justified for cause because the plaintiff breached his fiduciary duties by misrepresenting his role with another company and engaging in a pattern of claiming expenses from his employer while also deducting them on his income tax returns.

The oppression claim and the employer's counterclaim for misuse of confidential information were dismissed, though the employer was awarded reimbursement for specific improperly claimed expenses.

The applicant filed a police misconduct complaint arising from a stop and search during the G20 summit.

The OIPRD investigated and directed the Chief of Police to hold a disciplinary hearing.

Because more than six months had passed, the Chief applied to the Police Services Board for an extension of time.

The Board denied the extension without notifying the applicant, allowing him to make submissions, or providing reasons for its decision.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, holding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with notice, an opportunity to be heard, and reasons for its decision.

In a wrongful dismissal and oppression action, the defendants brought a motion seeking (1) answers to refusals and undertakings arising from the plaintiff’s discovery, and (2) leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The refusals related to questions about mitigation efforts following termination.

The court held the questions were relevant and protected by the deemed undertaking rule, and the plaintiff’s confidentiality concerns did not justify refusal in the absence of a confidentiality order or evidentiary basis.

Applying the principles governing amendments under Rule 26.01, the court held the proposed amendments raised tenable causes of action and would not cause non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff was ordered to answer the discovery refusals and the defendants were granted leave to amend their counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal released a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The respondent, RSM Richter Inc., was the successful party and was awarded costs.

The court fixed the costs of all proceedings, including the motion, stay, appeal, and cross-appeal, at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellant personally rather than by the estate.

The appellant faced allegations before the Ontario Securities Commission regarding an alleged Ponzi scheme.

He sought a third-party production order from a court-appointed receiver in an unrelated proceeding to obtain documents for his defence.

The motion judge granted partial production.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not an 'interested person' in the receivership because he sought the documents for a collateral purpose.

Furthermore, the Court found it inappropriate for the Superior Court to make interlocutory procedural orders regarding a proceeding pending before a tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed and the receiver's cross-appeal was allowed.

The moving party sought production of documents and information held by a court‑appointed receiver in connection with an investigation related to alleged securities fraud proceedings before the Ontario Securities Commission.

The court considered whether the principles governing third‑party production established in R. v. O'Connor and R. v. McNeil applied to records held by a receiver acting as an officer of the court.

It held that although receivers generally are not required to disclose investigative materials beyond their reports, that protection cannot override an accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

Applying the O'Connor framework, the court required the moving party to demonstrate that the requested records were “likely relevant.” Only limited categories of documents met that threshold, including certain materials from lawyers, the accountant, and recovered emails, while most requests were rejected as speculative fishing expeditions.

The applicant, as Note Trustee of the Maple Trust, brought a motion for an order approving a marketing and sale process for the trust's assets following an Event of Default.

The motion was contested by a party who argued that any sale must obtain prior court approval.

The court approved the sale process but ordered that it include a provision requiring prior court approval for any transaction, applying the Soundair principles, to ensure the best possible price is obtained without unnecessary delay.