Shaun F. Laubman

The applicant sought an order for production of financial disclosure from third parties (the respondent's father, family corporations, and a family trust) pursuant to the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant and respondent are involved in family proceedings concerning child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant sought to set aside a domestic contract and alleged the respondent's reported income had declined significantly post-separation despite evidence of substantially higher cash flow during the marriage.

The third parties opposed production, arguing the motion was premature and that the domestic contract must first be set aside.

The court found the motion was not premature, that the applicant had met her onus, and that disclosure was necessary to fairly determine the respondent's true income and net family property.

The court ordered production of financial statements and corporate tax returns from the companies and details of non-arm's length expenses from all third parties, subject to confidentiality terms.

An appeal from a Superior Court decision regarding the provability of a former employee's profit-sharing claim in the bankruptcy of a real estate development company.

The trustee disallowed the claim on the grounds that it was an equity claim and too contingent and remote.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, finding the profit-sharing claim was a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract, not an equity claim, and was therefore provable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision and confirming that the profit-sharing claim is a provable claim that takes priority over the limited partners' equity claims.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion by Irene Theodora Maria Slegers to disqualify Lerners LLP from acting for Hans Charles Jonckheere due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict, and was then asked to determine costs.

The court reviews the parties’ positions, the timing of the costs determination, the presumption of costs for the successful party, the impact of settlement offers, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs claimed.

Ultimately, the court orders Irene to pay Hans $57,000 in costs, reflecting the complexity and significance of the motion, the parties’ conduct, and comparable case law.

The court considered a motion by the respondent, Irene Slegers, to disqualify Lerners LLP from acting for the applicant, Hans Jonckheere, due to alleged conflicts of interest.

The issues included whether Slegers was ever a client of Lerners, whether confidential information was shared, and whether any such information was relevant to the current litigation.

The court found that Slegers was never a client of Lerners, that any information she shared was unsolicited and not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that there was no conflict of interest.

The motion to remove Lerners LLP was dismissed.

This decision addresses cross-applications between two groups of real estate investors, led by David Civiero and Grant Alexander Hood, regarding the winding up or buy-sell/shotgun disposition of their jointly held corporations.

The court grants leave to add parties, converts the applications to actions, and orders transfer and consolidation with a related Toronto action, finding that the complexity and credibility issues require a full trial.

This decision addresses cross-motions by the plaintiffs (Hood) and defendants (Civiero) to compel answers to refused questions during examinations for discovery in a dispute over joint venture real estate projects.

The court ruled on the relevance and proportionality of various categories of questions, including those related to income, financial documents, potential witnesses, and the nature of agreements.

Key issues included the disclosure of personal expenses run through a joint company, the production of deleted text messages, and the privilege associated with the payment of legal fees.

The court also addressed requests for further discovery time, granting limited additional time to both parties with specific conditions.

The applicants brought a motion for an interim and/or interlocutory order to restrain the respondents from exercising powers prejudicial to their interests in a family trucking business and to nullify recent corporate governance actions.

The court granted a partial injunction, restraining the respondents from acting prejudicially or outside the corporation's best interests, finding a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoring this restraint.

However, the court denied the request to nullify the corporate governance actions (which removed the applicants as directors and officers), as this constituted a mandatory injunction requiring a strong prima facie case, which the applicants failed to meet regarding their shareholder status.

Sukhdev Dhaliwal remained the sole shareholder, director, and officer, subject to the imposed restraints.

The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.

The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.

The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.

This decision addresses the costs of a complex motion concerning the interpretation of an interim preservation order's "usual and ordinary course of business" term.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of approximately $105,000, while the respondents proposed $25,000.

The court awarded the applicant $98,000, finding them overwhelmingly successful on the key issues.

The court emphasized proportionality, the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and the respondents' conduct, including significant delays, late affidavit delivery, and a "scorched earth policy," which unnecessarily increased costs.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce an "Outline of Terms of Settlement" reached during mediation, arguing it constituted a binding agreement.

The defendants contended that the Outline was not intended to be enforceable and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the Outline did not objectively reflect a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and that numerous material issues, including debt reallocation, minority shareholder rights, and tax implications of asset transfers, remained unresolved.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that it cannot create a contract for parties where essential terms are missing.

The plaintiffs, Grant A. Hood Holdings Inc. and Grant A. Hood, brought a motion seeking unfettered access to the books and records of Hodero Holdings Ltd. and Cade Management Ltd., including real-time online access to QuickBooks, source documents, and the Hodero email server, as well as further affidavits of documents from the defendants.

The court granted real-time QuickBooks access with shared costs, allowed on-site inspection of hard copy source documents with shared conversion costs, but denied broad access to the Hodero email server, finding no legitimate business need and that the request was disproportionate.

The court also denied immediate orders for further affidavits of documents and cross-examination on them, emphasizing ongoing disclosure obligations.

Portions of an affidavit related to arbitration confidentiality were struck.

This motion concerned the interpretation of the term “usual and ordinary course of business” as it applied to corporate respondents in an interim preservation order.

The corporate respondents sought an expansive interpretation to allow significant financial transactions, including leveraging properties and transferring funds for a private mortgage lending business.

The applicant sought a narrow interpretation to preserve assets.

The court applied principles of judicial order interpretation, emphasizing context and purpose, and found the respondents' proposed interpretation would negate the preservation order's effect.

The court adopted a narrow definition, limiting “usual and ordinary course of business” to day-to-day operations and management, explicitly excluding large-scale asset encumbrance or intercorporate fund transfers for investment.

All other relief sought by the respondents was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a motion to appoint a litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. The plaintiffs, Kathy Ann Di Silvestro and Kandis Developments Limited, successfully moved to appoint an independent litigation guardian (Bryan Gelman) for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., despite opposition from the defendants Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, who proposed themselves or an accountant with prior involvement.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $80,000 in costs, with 50% to be paid by Anthony Di Silvestro Sr. and the other 50% jointly and severally by Laura Marie Di Silvestro and Matthew Dennis Di Silvestro, due to their pursuit of inappropriate LG candidates despite clear conflicts of interest.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the respondents' largely unsuccessful motion to stay or dismiss the applicant's proceeding.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, while the respondents sought costs thrown away due to the applicant's improper procedural choice (application instead of action) and conduct.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $50,000, but also awarded the respondents $25,000 "on account" for costs thrown away, considering the applicant's procedural misstep, improper contact with represented parties, and questionable urgency claims.

The net result was an order for the respondents to pay the applicant $25,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The Proposal Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the procedure for determining a complex proof of claim filed by Maria Athanasoulis, comprising a wrongful dismissal claim and a significant profit share claim, within the context of a court-approved proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion addressed disagreements among stakeholders (Athanasoulis, Sponsor, and Limited Partners) on how to proceed with the claim's determination and subsequent appeal, particularly concerning the scope of evidence, the nature of the appeal (true appeal vs. de novo), and the standing of the Limited Partners.

The court provided detailed directions to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, deferring the valuation of future-oriented damages until after the provability of the profit share claim is determined on appeal, and limiting the Limited Partners' standing to specific issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to appoint an independent litigation guardian for Anthony Di Silvestro Sr., who was deemed incapable of managing his property and instructing counsel.

The defendants, including Tony Sr.'s daughter Laura, opposed, arguing Laura should remain as LG based on a Power of Attorney and that the plaintiffs needed to show misconduct.

The court found that Laura and Matthew had conflicts of interest due to allegations of undue influence over their parents' business and estate plans.

The court dismissed Laura's claim that her prior self-appointment as LG shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to prove misconduct.

Applying the 'best interests test' and 'indifference' principle from Gronnerud, the court ruled that neither Laura, Matthew, nor a family-connected accountant (Mr. Mastroluisi) were suitable due to potential conflicts.

The court appointed Bryan Gelman, an independent insolvency trustee, as the litigation guardian for Tony Sr., subject to approval of terms.

This appeal concerned the enforcement of letters rogatory issued by a California court in a divorce action, seeking financial disclosure from Canadian corporations and an individual.

The Ontario application judge granted the request, subject to minor refinements.

The appellants, corporate entities associated with the husband, argued procedural errors (lack of service) and substantive errors (wrong test applied, fishing expedition, burden of proof).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the disclosure was relevant to family law obligations and not a fishing expedition, and that the application judge correctly applied the criteria for enforcing letters rogatory, including principles of comity and public policy.

The court also found that the documents were not otherwise obtainable given the husband's history of non-compliance.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

This endorsement provides a clarification to an earlier ruling on a pre-trial motion.

The respondent (moving party) had sought to prevent the applicant from raising issues concerning the ownership, control, or valuation of Firm Capital Mortgage Corporation or Door to Door Investments Inc. (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The original motion was dismissed, allowing the applicant to raise these issues.

The clarification emphasizes that this permission does not dictate the manner in which these matters may be raised, the admissibility of evidence, or how evidence may be led.

It also clarifies that the ruling did not address the addition of Marilyn Dadouch or the FCMC Companies as parties, stating that such relief would require a separate motion.

The Respondent sought a pre-trial ruling to preclude the Applicant from raising issues related to the ownership, control, or valuation of certain companies (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The Respondent argued irrelevance, abuse of process due to a parallel civil action, issue estoppel from a prior disclosure motion, lack of necessary parties, and insufficient pleadings.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding the Applicant's claims relevant to net family property and support, no abuse of process as the legal issues differed from the civil action, no issue estoppel as the prior ruling was on disclosure, and no preclusion due to non-joinder of parties or insufficient pleadings, as the Respondent had clear notice of the issues.