Stephen F. Gleave

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $20,000.

The plaintiff withdrew its motion for an interlocutory injunction regarding the alleged misappropriation of confidential information by former employees.

The defendants sought costs of the abandoned motion on a substantial indemnity scale under Rule 37.09(3).

The court exercised its discretion to order costs in the cause, finding that the plaintiff acted reasonably in pursuing the injunction initially and that the work done on the motion would be useful at trial.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an unreported order of B. MacNeil J. dated April 15, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

This decision encompasses the Phase II supplementary reasons and the appended Phase I trial reasons regarding a dispute over a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) for an insurance brokerage.

In Phase I, the court found that the defendants breached the SPA and acted oppressively by constructively dismissing key employees, which negatively impacted the target EBITDA.

The court also ruled that any reduction in the purchase price for failing to meet the target EBITDA was limited to the value of the Preferred Shares.

In Phase II, the court adopted the parties' joint submissions resolving the remaining factual and legal issues regarding specific EBITDA adjustments, directing the parties to proceed to Phase III to calculate the final deferred payment.

The appellant employer terminated the respondent's employment and made several termination-related payments, including a mistaken payment in November 2018.

The parties subsequently attended mediation and executed minutes of settlement requiring the employer to pay $150,000 'in addition to amounts already paid'.

The employer's representatives at mediation were unaware of the November payment and later sought to deduct it from the settlement amount.

The motion judge enforced the settlement, finding no ambiguity and no fraud by the respondent regarding the employer's unilateral mistake.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the subjective, uncommunicated knowledge of the employer's representatives did not form part of the factual matrix for contractual interpretation.

The applicant, Richard Sherk, brought a motion for an interim payment out of court of funds held to the credit of the action.

The respondent, Mark Sherk, opposed the motion, arguing that the funds served as a 'cushion' for potential damages he might be awarded and that further reduction would be prejudicial.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the respondent's arguments without merit, consistent with prior decisions and the Divisional Court's ruling that the respondent had no right to the funds as security ahead of judgment.

The plaintiff sold its shares in a specialized transportation insurance broker to the defendant under a Share Purchase Agreement.

The agreement included a deferred payment for preferred shares, which could be reduced if the company failed to meet an earnings target during a three-year warranty period.

The company failed to meet the target, and the plaintiff brought an action for oppression and breach of contract, alleging the defendant sabotaged the earnings by constructively dismissing key employees and misallocating commissions.

The court found that the defendant constructively dismissed two key salespeople and acted oppressively, breaching the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.

The court ruled that any reduction in the purchase price was limited to the preferred shares and awarded the plaintiff credits for certain misallocated commissions, while reserving other issues for further submissions.

The plaintiff employer sued two former salespeople and their new employer for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence after the employees resigned and began soliciting the plaintiff's customers.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the former employees were ordinary salespeople with no managerial power or discretion, and therefore were not fiduciary employees.

The court also found no evidence that the employees misappropriated or misused any confidential information.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for the production of documents related to the defendant's recruitment process for a Co-Head of M&A. The plaintiff alleged the hiring of the new Co-Head amounted to a demotion and constructive dismissal.

The court found the recruitment documents relevant to the plaintiff's allegations but limited production to documents concerning the successful candidate and one other top candidate to balance relevance with the privacy interests of non-parties and the principle of proportionality.

This endorsement addresses costs for a motion brought by Daniel Sherk, seeking to compel Verge Insurance Brokers Limited to pay the balance of Deloitte's forensic accounting fees.

Daniel Sherk was unsuccessful in his motion.

The court awarded Verge partial indemnity costs, fixing them at $37,500.00, significantly less than the $79,629.31 requested on a substantial indemnity basis.

Additionally, Verge was awarded $1,500.00 for its involvement in Deloitte's separate application for payment.

The court emphasized reasonableness and proportionality in fixing costs, noting that the motion was uncomplicated and senior counsel's time appeared inordinate.

Deloitte, a forensic expert, brought a motion for costs against Daniel Sherk for an outstanding account, following a prior ruling that established Sherk's responsibility for the balance.

Sherk had agreed to judgment for the amount owed but disputed the basis and quantum of costs.

The court found Sherk's opposition was not "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous" to warrant substantial indemnity costs or sanctions.

The court awarded Deloitte costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amount from $27,546.00 to $17,500.00, considering proportionality and Deloitte's failure to respond to Sherk's offer.

The defendant Daniel Sherk moved for the plaintiffs (Verge Insurance Brokers Limited et al.) to pay the total costs incurred by Deloitte Forensic Inc. for recreating, preserving, and analyzing 79 backup tapes.

The court reviewed previous orders by Quinn J. and Turnbull J., which stipulated that while Verge had an obligation to produce relevant documents from the tapes, Daniel's subsequent audit by Deloitte was generally at his own expense.

The court found that Verge had already paid for Deloitte's analysis of the initial 13 tapes as ordered by Turnbull J. due to Verge's initial non-compliance.

However, Daniel's motion for Verge to cover the additional costs for the remaining 66 tapes (approximately $280,000) was dismissed, with the possibility of rearguing these costs as disbursements at trial.

The court also denied Deloitte's claim for interest on the $67,613.99 already paid by Verge, as Deloitte had failed to cash the cheque promptly.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims of breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, breach of fidelity, and fiduciary duty brought by their former employer, the plaintiff.

The plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment and leave to amend its statement of claim.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that there was no restrictive covenant, no fiduciary relationship between the former employee and the plaintiff, and no misuse of confidential information (as client names and contact details stored on a personal phone were not deemed confidential).

Furthermore, the court determined that the former employee's communication with clients did not constitute solicitation.

The plaintiff's attempt to amend its claim to include a failure to give reasonable notice was rejected as statute-barred.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for the production of emails protected by solicitor-client privilege, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The defendant sought $16,190 on an actual indemnity basis, noting an unaccepted offer to settle the motion for $5,775.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarding the successful defendant $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for breach of non-solicitation and non-interference covenants contained in an Asset Purchase Agreement and Non-Disclosure and Non-Solicitation Agreement.

The motion judge found the non-solicitation clauses unreasonable and unenforceable.

On appeal, the court determined that even if the motion judge erred in finding the covenants unenforceable, the action could not succeed because the motion judge made a factual finding that there was no evidence the respondent solicited clients of the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the production of a chain of emails between the defendant's counsel and the defendant.

The defendant opposed the motion on the grounds of solicitor-client privilege.

After a confidential review of the emails, the court found that the communications involved instructions and legal advice between a solicitor, his law firm, and their client, and were intended to be confidential.

The motion for production was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for an interim payment out of court of funds held to the credit of the action following a shareholder dispute and oppression application.

The court previously ordered funds paid into court as security pending trial.

Relying on a recent Divisional Court decision upholding a similar prior interim payment, the court found the applicant was entitled to the funds under the formula established by the previous order.

The motion was granted and a payment of $392,712.50 was ordered.

The defendant Daniel Sherk sought leave to appeal an order denying various requests for document production.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the procedural motion did not involve matters of general or public importance beyond the immediate parties, thus failing the second part of the strict two-part test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

This is a costs endorsement following Daniel Sherk's successful motion to compel production of backup tapes.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to comply with disclosure obligations under the Rules of Practice and the Sedona Principles, necessitating Daniel Sherk to incur significant costs for an audit.

The court awarded Daniel Sherk substantial indemnity costs, including indemnification for the $200,000 paid to Deloitte for the audit, totaling $46,854.92 for the motion itself.