Simon Bieber

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that held them liable for the balance of a business purchase price.

Their defence was based on fraudulent misrepresentations about the business's revenues.

The motion judge had dismissed this defence, relying on an "entire agreement" clause in the purchase agreement and the appellants' opportunities for due diligence.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in law by giving preclusive effect to the entire agreement clause, as such clauses do not immunize against fraudulent misrepresentation.

Furthermore, opportunities for due diligence do not negate a party's right to avoid a contract based on fraudulent misrepresentation if actual knowledge of the untruth was not proven.

The Court concluded that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding the fraudulent misrepresentation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgment and remitting the matter for trial.

The plaintiffs, limited partners and their newly appointed general partners, moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the former general partners and non-party project companies from dealing with real estate development properties pending a governance trial.

They also sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation and to amend their statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an interlocutory injunction could not be granted against the non-party project companies because the plaintiffs had not claimed a permanent injunction against them, nor had they provided an undertaking in damages.

The request for a certificate of pending litigation was also denied as the plaintiffs, being shareholders of the project companies, did not have a triable issue for a direct interest in the properties.

The plaintiffs and defendants, former friends, invested in real estate together.

The plaintiffs claimed a 50% beneficial interest in a property registered solely in the defendants' names, based on an oral agreement and a $69,000 contribution.

The court found the oral agreement enforceable due to part performance, overcoming the Statute of Frauds, and ordered the property sold and proceeds divided.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' libel claim regarding false accusations of criminal conduct, finding the publication was de minimis and caused no actual harm.

The action was held to be within the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The defendant vendors brought a motion to permanently stay the action, alleging the plaintiff purchasers failed to promptly disclose a settlement agreement reached with the co-defendant brokers.

The court found that the agreement was a 'simple settlement' involving only a without-costs dismissal and a standard release, with no terms requiring the brokers' cooperation against the vendors.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the court held that the agreement did not entirely change the litigation landscape or the adversarial relationship between the parties, and therefore did not trigger the immediate disclosure requirement.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion at the opening of trial to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to their failure to comply with multiple pre-trial production orders regarding financial records.

The court found that while the defendants' production was tardy and potentially incomplete, striking the defence altogether would be a disproportionate remedy.

The motion was dismissed, with the court noting that adverse inferences could be drawn at trial if the plaintiffs' ability to prove their claim was impeded by missing records.

In the context of a shareholder proxy fight, the applicants sought an order declaring the dissident shareholders' proxy circulars materially misleading and invalidating their proxies.

The dissident shareholders brought a motion seeking to hold the upcoming shareholders meeting virtually and to appoint an independent chair.

The court dismissed the application, finding the circulars were not materially misleading.

The court allowed the motion in part, refusing to mandate a purely virtual meeting but appointing the dissidents' proposed independent chair after finding the applicants deliberately breached a prior court order by unilaterally appointing their own chair.

The plaintiffs brought an action to rescind a settlement agreement, alleging the defendant fraudulently inflated the company's revenue prior to the plaintiff purchasing the defendant's shares.

The defendants moved to strike the action as an abuse of process based on a full and final release signed during the settlement.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing the settlement agreement's default provisions.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud that was not contemplated by the release.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the defendant returned to the business.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over document production costs in Ontario, arising from letters of request issued by a Florida court to compel the respondent, Mr. Smith, to produce documents and attend examination in aid of US litigation.

The applicants (Perlmutters and Mr. Peerenboom) sought to avoid or shift the costs of Mr. Smith's counsel reviewing documents for relevancy and privilege, arguing Mr. Smith was an interested party and not impecunious.

The court affirmed its prior ruling that Mr. Smith's counsel must conduct the review and that the applicants are liable for these costs on a full indemnity basis, ordering them to pre-pay $200,000 for continued document production.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a credit agreement and warrant certificate.

The applicant argued that the respondent could only exercise its share purchase warrants upon a liquidity event or additional security issuance.

The respondent argued the warrants could be exercised at any time.

The court applied principles of commercial contract interpretation, finding that the preamble clearly allowed exercise at any time and that restricting exercise to triggering events would lead to a commercial absurdity given the risk the respondent assumed.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants, general partners in three limited partnerships, appealed an application judge's order requiring them to produce information to the respondent limited partners and to include specific material in annual and semi-annual reports.

The appellants argued procedural unfairness and that the order exceeded the limited partnership agreements (LPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the appellants had ample notice, and that the order was consistent with the broad information rights of limited partners under section 10 of the Limited Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

L.16, and did not prejudice the appellants.

K.S.P. Holdings Inc. (KSP) appealed a Master's decision that dismissed its motions to quash a summons to examine its counsel and to strike an expert affidavit.

KSP's underlying motion sought to stay the action due to Tallman Truck Centre Limited's (Tallman) alleged late disclosure of a litigation agreement with co-defendant Secure Capital Advisors Inc. The court found that the Master erred by allowing the examination of opposing counsel and admitting expert evidence on issues irrelevant to the abuse of process analysis, which, according to Handley Estate, focuses on immediate disclosure and does not require proof of prejudice.

The appeal was granted, quashing the summons and striking the affidavit.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found their professional negligence action was not statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent neither knew nor ought to have known that its loss was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.

The plaintiffs, investors in mutual funds managed by Crystal Wealth, lost their life savings due to fraud by the fund's management.

They sought to certify a class action in negligence against BDO Canada LLP, the fund's auditor, alleging that BDO's failure to conduct proper audits delayed the discovery of the fraud.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' pleading did not disclose a legally viable cause of action.

Applying established jurisprudence, the court held that BDO did not owe a proximate duty of care to the individual investors for their pure economic losses.

The moving parties sought to quash an appeal of an application judge's order that had granted their application under the Limited Partnerships Act to compel the responding parties to provide financial information.

The moving parties argued the order was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge's order was final, as it brought the application to an end and finally determined the moving parties' entitlement to financial information.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a class action for secondary market misrepresentation against a company and its officers.

The claims arose from an unauthorized investment made by the CEO, which was not fully disclosed in subsequent financial statements and press releases.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility that the CFO knew or deliberately avoided knowing about the unauthorized investment, and that a press release announcing the CEO's departure constituted a public correction, signaling concerns about the CEO's conduct related to the investment.

The appellant appealed an application judge's decision setting aside an arbitrator's award of $12.3 million in damages for lost profits.

The arbitrator had found that the respondent unlawfully terminated a purchase and management agreement by delivering a "Defunct Project Notice" in bad faith, thereby depriving the appellant of the value of awarded contracts.

The application judge had set aside the award, finding the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by awarding damages for lost profits, which were allegedly precluded by the contract's indemnity provisions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction by interpreting and applying the substantive provisions of the contract, and that section 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act permits only limited review for jurisdictional error, not review of the merits of the arbitrator's decision.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's professional negligence claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants, its accountants, should have detected an employee fraud earlier.

The court applied the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002, considering the professional relationship and the defendants' ameliorative efforts.

It found the limitation period did not begin until the plaintiff received independent accounting advice in January 2016, making the July 2017 action timely.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer whose licence was revoked on December 10, 2014, appealed two orders that permanently enjoined him from advertising, holding himself out, and practising as a lawyer in Ontario.

The appellant challenged the fairness of the proceedings and claimed various bases for his right to practise law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the permanent injunctions, finding that the appellant had clearly breached section 26.1 of the Law Society Act by continuing to hold himself out as a lawyer and offer legal services after his disbarment.

The court rejected all of the appellant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and his claimed rights to practise law.

This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 4 of the Interest Act to complex commercial loan agreements between ClearFlow Energy Finance Corp. and Solar Power Network Inc. The central dispute involves whether a "discount fee" of 0.003% per day and "administration fees" constitute interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, and whether the loan agreements comply with the statutory requirement to express interest as an annual rate or percentage.

The application judge found that the discount fee was interest, that the loan agreements failed to comply with section 4, and that all interest payable should be capped at 5% per annum.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the discount fee was properly annualized through a formula in the Loan Agreement, that the Loan Agreement complied with section 4, and that the appropriate remedy for non-compliance in the Promissory Notes was to limit only the non-compliant discount fee to 5%, not all interest payable.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by defendant Atif Kamran to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel for plaintiffs Dan Andersson and LEO Canada Inc., and to compel document production.

The court awarded costs to Mr. Kamran, payable by Mr. Andersson alone, fixed at $17,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by Mr. Andersson and noting that the defendants' settlement offer was technically deficient and lacked clarity, thus not engaging the presumptive consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court also considered the broader context of the litigation and the inflammatory nature of some allegations made by Mr. Kamran.