Solomiya Zakharchuk

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) brought a motion under Rule 5.05 to sever certain allegations advanced by Tarion Warranty Corporation (Tarion) into two separate actions.

Tarion, along with Carlo and Dino Taurasi, opposed the motion.

TD argued that Tarion's negligence claim (related to a cheque kiting scheme) and its claim to set aside a settlement agreement as a fraudulent conveyance were discrete and temporally separate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no undue complexity, delay, or prejudice, and that the claims arose from the same series of transactions with significant factual overlap, promoting the convenient administration of justice and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding that he engaged in fraudulent conduct under s. 126.1 of the Securities Act by approving unauthorized transfers of cash between investment funds to pay distributions and dealer fees.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its factual findings, its rejection of his due diligence and reliance on legal advice defences, and its imposition of sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Panel's factual findings or legal analysis, but reduced the disgorgement order from $51,361 to $45,298 based on a concession by the respondent regarding the calculation methodology.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for defamation and misfeasance in public office, the successful defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court applied the principles from Apotex and Rule 57.01, noting the serious allegations made, the complexity of the 10-year litigation, and the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.

The court found the defendants' reduced costs requests to be fair and reasonable, ordering the plaintiff to pay $280,000 to one defendant and $250,000 to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff, a general surgeon, sued the hospital, its chief executive officer, and its chief of staff for defamation and misfeasance in public office after losing his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff alleged that the chief of staff defamed him in a letter and in oral statements, and that the defendants acted in bad faith to oust him from the hospital.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the oral defamatory statements were not proven and that the letter was protected by qualified privilege.

The court held it had jurisdiction to hear the misfeasance claim but dismissed it, finding no evidence of unlawful acts, malice, or improper purpose by the defendants.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.