Stephanie Megan Zucker

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its sole director, moved for a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking their registrations pending appeal.

The Tribunal had found the appellants breached multiple conditions of a prior consent order, including failing to disclose material facts to consumers and trading without required education.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the appellants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the public interest in consumer protection.

The parties brought competing motions regarding three disputed terms of their 2019 Minutes of Settlement: the removal of snowmobiles, the form of a share transfer agreement, and the payout of a life insurance policy.

The court ordered the applicant to remove the snowmobiles by a specific date, rejected the applicant's complex share transfer agreement in favour of a simpler one with basic representations and an indemnity, and refused to set aside the life insurance provision, finding no unilateral or mutual mistake that would justify rescission.

The applicant purchased two commercial condominium units from the respondent developer.

The purchase price was to be adjusted based on the 'actual gross area' of the units, calculated in accordance with the BOMA 1996 Standard.

The applicant argued the price should be based only on the net usable area, while the respondent argued it must include a gross-up for floor and building common areas.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract's explicit reference to the BOMA 1996 Standard objectively demonstrated the parties' intention to include the proportionate share of common areas in the calculation of the purchase price.

The plaintiffs previously obtained an ex parte interim Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The defendants retained counsel and sought time to respond, while filing an affidavit stating the injunction had frozen their business and personal accounts, preventing the operation of their mortgage brokerage and payment of personal expenses.

On consent, the court extended the injunction to September 20, 2021, and varied its terms to exempt the business accounts and allow the defendants to access personal accounts for living expenses.

On a Crown application in a criminal price-fixing prosecution, the court considered whether factual information supplied by cooperating corporations to the Competition Bureau during immunity and leniency proffers was protected from disclosure by settlement privilege or solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that solicitor-client privilege was waived when the information was voluntarily provided to the prosecuting authorities for use against other accused persons.

It further held that settlement privilege did not extend to factual information given in circumstances where the providers knew the information would be used to prosecute others and were themselves no longer exposed to resulting criminal or civil jeopardy.

In any event, the accused's constitutional right to make full answer and defence would override settlement privilege, and the applicable disclosure standard was the first party Stinchcombe regime.