Shaun F. Laubman

The applicant sought an order discharging a transformer easement registered on its property in 1965 in favour of the Crown, which was ancillary to an approach lighting easement for the Windsor Airport.

The applicant argued the easement had been abandoned or had expired by its terms.

The court found that while abandonment was not proven, the easement had expired by its own terms because technological advances, including GPS navigation and self-contained transformers in modern approach lights, rendered the stand-alone transformer obsolete.

The court ordered the easement discharged.

The appellant was substantially successful on appeal and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant $7,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis for the appeal.

However, the court declined to alter the costs order from the underlying motion to strike, finding that the respondent remained the successful party on that motion.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for the return of confidential information held by their former employee, the defendant, on her personal computer.

The defendant had been terminated and was sued for allegedly stealing over $400,000, while she counterclaimed for wrongful termination.

The parties agreed to have an independent IT expert copy and delete the confidential information, but disputed whether the expert should image the entire hard drive for preservation and whether the defendant should swear an affirmation confirming all confidential documents were produced.

The court ordered that the hard drive be imaged and preserved by an independent third party to prevent future disputes, and required the defendant to provide a sworn confirmation.

The appellant tenant sued the respondent landlord for damages arising from two sewer backups, alleging breach of lease, negligence, and misrepresentation.

The motion judge struck most claims, finding they were barred by the lease's covenant to insure.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the covenant to insure barred the negligence and breach of contract claims, it was not plain and obvious that it or the 'entire agreement' clause barred the negligent misrepresentation claim.

The Court also allowed the tenant's claim that the landlord was estopped from relying on the covenant to insure for the second backup to proceed.

During an ongoing civil trial involving dealership market allocation disputes, the defendant sought permission to rely on a second supplemental expert report and to introduce maps and charts derived from previously discovered market study data.

The plaintiff argued the late expert report constituted trial by ambush and violated prior scheduling orders.

The court held that the supplemental expert opinion properly responded to new expert evidence and newly discovered data introduced during the proceedings, and its admission would not cause unfair prejudice.

The court also permitted the introduction of charts and maps derived from historical data for explanatory purposes, while refusing to authorize a new expert report from a non-designated witness responding to the opposing expert.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal from an order striking certain paragraphs of their statement of defence.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the order under appeal was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive defence.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appellant and respondent entered into a business arrangement to acquire a property, incorporating a company to hold it.

The respondent provided financing, secured by promissory notes and share pledging agreements.

When a third partner defaulted, the appellant acquired his shares but failed to pay the outstanding debt associated with them.

The trial judge found the respondent was entitled to forfeit the unpaid shares, resulting in a 55% ownership stake for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably interpreted the interconnected agreements and correctly found that the statement of claim served as sufficient written notice of forfeiture.

The parties entered into a joint venture to purchase and convert a property into a self-storage facility, which included a put/call agreement.

The respondent exercised the put, forcing the appellant to purchase the property at a price determined by an appraiser.

The appellant refused to close, alleging the appraiser made a manifest error by not using the income approach.

The trial judge granted specific performance to the respondent and awarded substantial indemnity costs based on an unserved offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the appraisal, upholding the award of specific performance for the vendor, and confirming the costs award.

The appellants appealed an order establishing a sale process for two corporations involved in an oppression remedy claim.

The motion judge ordered that the two corporations being sold could no longer be parties to the litigation to facilitate the sale.

The appellants argued this would cause tax prejudice, but the Court of Appeal found that any tax consequences could be addressed through expert calculation without flowing damages through the corporations.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an earlier endorsement granting interlocutory injunctions concerning non‑solicitation and confidentiality, the court addressed the issue of costs of the motion.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs at $105,000 all inclusive.

The court fixed the quantum accordingly but declined to determine liability for those costs at this stage.

Liability was reserved for the judge who will determine the final disposition of the action, to avoid prejudging potential outcomes or factual developments.

Multiple tobacco manufacturer defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $300,000 after withdrawing previously scheduled motions to strike the Crown’s statement of claim in a health care cost recovery action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

The defendants argued they were the successful parties because their motions prompted extensive amendments to the pleading and that the Crown delayed notifying them of its intention to amend.

The court held that the amendments addressed only some of the alleged deficiencies and that significant legal issues remained unresolved when the defendants chose to withdraw the motions.

As a result, success on the motions was considered divided.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The defendant franchisor brought a motion for further documentary production from the plaintiff franchisee in an $11 million dispute over dealership construction and a competing franchise.

The defendant sought construction files, financial records of related non-party corporations, and documents from the plaintiff's accountants to assess the plaintiff's damages claims.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce additional construction documents, disclose relevant inter-company agreements, and request the voluntary production of financial statements from related non-party corporations, with leave for the defendant to bring Rule 30.10 motions if refused.

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.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment that found a shotgun buy-sell offer valid and enforceable despite minor non-compliance with the partnership agreement.

The offer contained two alternatives, one compliant and one non-compliant.

The Court of Appeal held that strict compliance with a shotgun buy-sell provision is required, but strict compliance is not perfect compliance.

The inclusion of a non-compliant alternative did not render the offer unenforceable because a compliant alternative was also included.

The court upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce the compliant alternative and award damages for the non-compliant elements.

Following a 17‑day commercial trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment for specific performance and damages exceeding its earlier settlement offer, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that a written settlement offer transmitted by email triggered substantial indemnity costs consequences.

The court held that the email constituted a valid Rule 49 offer notwithstanding the “without prejudice” designation and rejected the defendants’ argument that such wording removed the offer from Rule 49.

In assessing quantum, the court applied the principles under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness rather than strict adherence to actual legal fees.

The court fixed costs at a lump sum reflecting partial and substantial indemnity principles and adjustments for conduct that lengthened the proceedings.

Following the dismissal of the foreign tobacco defendants' jurisdictional appeals, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the appeals.

The appellants argued that costs should be capped at $100,000, asserting that the Crown treated the five appeals as one by filing a common factum.

The Court rejected this argument, finding no $100,000 ceiling exists for costs awards in the Court of Appeal.

Given the complexity, the $50 billion stakes, and the necessity of responding to five separate appeals, the Court fixed the Crown's partial indemnity costs at $237,332.50, apportioned between the BAT and RJR appellants.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing claims against several individual defendants on the basis that all contractual dealings were with a corporate entity operating under a business name.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known it was contracting with a corporation rather than individuals.

The court reviewed evidence including cheques, website references, and business name registration and applied the summary judgment framework under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff had sufficient notice that it was dealing with a corporation, leaving a genuine issue requiring a trial.

However, the claim against one individual defendant was dismissed for lack of any evidence of involvement in the transactions.

Following a successful oppression action involving breach of fiduciary duty, enforceability of a property management agreement, and corporate share ownership, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs relying in part on a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The defendants argued success at trial was divided and that no costs or reduced costs should be awarded.

The court found the plaintiff achieved substantial success, particularly on the oppression and fiduciary breach issues, and had effectively beaten portions of the Rule 49 offer.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate for certain issues after the offer date and partial indemnity for others.

Considering proportionality and the absence of a competing bill of costs from the defendant, the court fixed total costs at $145,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff and defendants entered into an Option Agreement for the purchase and sale of a retro-fitted self-storage facility.

The plaintiff exercised a 'Put' option requiring the defendants to purchase the property at an appraised value.

The defendants refused to close, alleging the appraisal contained a manifest error and that the roof was defective, breaching a warranty.

The court found no manifest error in the appraisal and that the roof issues were maintenance problems which the defendants, as property managers, had failed to address.

The court granted specific performance of the sale at the appraised value of $7.3 million and awarded the plaintiff $728,080.05 in carrying costs.

The plaintiff and defendants were friends who entered into a real estate joint venture through a corporation.

The plaintiff provided the financing, while the defendants were to manage the property.

After one defendant defaulted and was removed, the remaining defendant, acting as sole director, breached his fiduciary duties by hiding corporate income, falsifying records, and paying himself exorbitant property management fees against the plaintiff's objections.

The court found the defendant's conduct oppressive, determined the parties' respective shareholdings based on funds advanced, ordered the repayment of excess management fees, and imposed a shotgun buy/sell mechanism to effect a corporate divorce.