Stephen J. Maddex

In a professional negligence action arising from accounting advice regarding eligibility for Canadian Controlled Private Corporation status, the defendant accountants moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim.

The defendant also brought a third party claim against the plaintiffs’ solicitors alleging negligent misrepresentation and seeking contribution and indemnity.

The court held that the accounting negligence claim involved complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and professional standards unsuitable for determination on summary judgment and therefore required a trial.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the third party claim against the solicitors, finding no duty of care and no reasonable reliance by the accountants on the solicitors’ confirmations regarding a shareholders’ agreement.

Following a motion in a simplified procedure action involving a claim for corporate oppression and production of documents, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had largely succeeded on the underlying motion, including obtaining leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act and compelling answers to undertakings and production of financial records.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered complexity, proportionality, success, conduct of the parties, and the time and rates claimed.

The court held that the success on the motion justified an award of costs, but that the conduct alleged did not warrant elevated costs.

Costs were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a motion in a simplified procedure action seeking leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression claim under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, and to compel answers to undertakings and production of corporate records.

The court held that an oppression claim could be advanced within a Rule 76 simplified action and granted leave to amend the claim.

However, the court limited document production to records relevant to payments, financial statements, bank records, and financing related to the defendant corporation.

Production requests relating to an affiliated corporation were largely refused as irrelevant.

The court also ordered responses to certain discovery undertakings concerning payments to specific individuals and imposed limits on further discovery.

Following a summary judgment motion and cross-motion, the court determined the issue of costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff successfully defended the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and succeeded on a cross-motion, and sought costs accordingly.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded, but the court rejected that submission.

Applying the Rule 57 factors, including the amount at stake, the moderate complexity of the proceeding, and the reasonable rates and hours of counsel, the court held that costs should follow the result.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $10,500 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The moving party sought summary judgment dissolving an alleged partnership and the corporation through which the parties conducted a development business, together with an accounting and equal distribution of assets.

The court held that the motion was procedurally defective because the relief sought exceeded the pleadings and improperly attempted to dissolve a corporation under the Partnership Act rather than the Business Corporations Act.

Significant factual disputes also remained regarding whether the business was carried on by a partnership or a corporation and how assets were owned and managed.

Given the absence of necessary evidentiary foundation and unresolved factual issues, the court found that the matter was not appropriate for summary judgment.

On the responding party’s cross‑motion, the court ordered production of the moving party’s medical records and income tax returns as they were relevant to determining whether the partnership had been abandoned and the proper date of dissolution.

Family members disputed entitlement to proceeds from a winning “CHEO Dream of a Lifetime Lottery” ticket and the ownership of jointly held real property.

The applicants alleged an agreement to equally share any lottery winnings or, alternatively, that the respondent made a valid gift of equal shares to his parents.

The respondent denied the existence of any enforceable agreement or completed gift and argued the applicants had no legal or equitable entitlement to the proceeds held in court.

The court found that material facts and credibility issues were in dispute and directed that the application proceed as an action with pleadings, discovery, and mediation.

Separately, the court granted partition and sale of jointly owned property under the Partition Act, finding no evidence that the applicant’s request for sale was vexatious, malicious, or oppressive.