Sylvia Corthorn

The applicant, Chase Wong, brought a motion for interim injunctive and non-injunctive relief under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The motion for interim injunctive relief was dismissed, while the motion for non-injunctive relief was granted.

The parties subsequently agreed on the terms of the order, which included provisions for accounting, restrictions on the use and sale of corporate properties, and prohibitions on certain corporate actions pending a final determination of the related application.

The court also provided directions for costs submissions and clarified that issues related to outstanding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery require a separate motion.

The applicant and the respondent estate both brought motions under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules to question a non-party lawyer who had advised the applicant on a marriage contract over 30 years ago.

The non-party opposed the questioning, suggesting written interrogatories instead.

The court found that the three-part test for questioning a non-party was met, as the lawyer's evidence was crucial to the validity of the marriage contract and could not be easily obtained by other methods.

Given the lawyer's advanced age and the importance of his evidence, the court also ordered that the questioning be recorded to preserve the evidence for trial, analogous to Rule 36 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This costs endorsement followed motions regarding interim access.

The mother (respondent) sought costs, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the outcome of the interim access motions to be more favourable to the mother than her offer, thereby entitling her to costs on a full recovery basis from the date of the offer.

The court fixed the quantum of costs at $12,580, considering factors such as the father's late service of motion materials, the extensive volume of evidence exchanged, and the parties' modest financial means, ensuring the costs award would not impede the father's ability to make child support payments.

This addendum to a prior ruling on a motion addresses the remaining aspects of a request to strike a Third Party Counterclaim.

The Moving Parties (10313033 Canada Inc., Madeleine Bonhomme, and Sameh Mansour) sought to strike portions of Antranik Kechichian's counterclaim against Bonhomme and Mansour, alleging abuse of process due to duplication with other proceedings, irreconcilable positions, and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The court found that the claims against Bonhomme regarding the Aylmer franchise and against Mansour regarding the Innes Road franchise were indeed an abuse of process, as they could have been pleaded in existing actions involving corporations controlled by Bonhomme and Mansour, or presented irreconcilable positions.

Consequently, the remaining paragraphs of the counterclaim against the Moving Parties were struck.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought a redaction order to conceal the amount of a settlement and advance payments, as well as expert reports on damages, from the public record.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious risk to important public interests such as settlement privilege, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, or the privacy of litigants, as required by the Sierra Club test.

The extensive media attention was not considered a measure of public interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of an infant settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court identified several deficiencies in the motion record, including a lack of clarity on the scope of the settlement approval sought (whether it included the adult plaintiff's claims), insufficient evidence regarding the minor plaintiff Rider's specific losses for care, guidance, and companionship, and a potential conflict of interest for the litigation guardian (who was also an injured plaintiff) if the total damages claimed exceeded the defendant's insurance limits.

The court declined to approve the settlement at this stage and required additional materials and clarification before making a decision.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a partial settlement in a medical negligence action involving a person under disability.

The court found the supplementary motion record insufficient, noting non-compliance with filing rules (exhibits on USB stick, unnumbered pages) and a lack of substantive evidence.

Specifically, counsel failed to provide the necessary analyses of liability issues and the merits of claims against the settling defendants, relying on solicitor-client privilege which the court previously clarified was not a barrier.

The motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiffs to deliver the requisite evidence.

The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' action based on alleged fiduciary duties related to home insurance and mortgage renewal.

This endorsement addresses the defendants' claims for costs.

TD Canada Trust was awarded full indemnity costs of $19,035 based on contractual terms in the mortgage.

TD Insurance was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $13,840 for the motion due to the plaintiffs' unreasonable conduct in failing to provide evidence, and partial indemnity costs for the action.

The court adjusted claimed fees and disbursements for both defendants, disallowing duplication of effort, unidentified timekeepers, travel costs, and excessive process server expenses.

The plaintiffs, Dominic and Scarlett Perodeau, sued TD Canada Trust (the Bank) and Primmum Insurance Company (misnomered as TD Insurance) for breach of fiduciary duty following a house fire and uninsured property.

The plaintiffs alleged Primmum breached a fiduciary duty to the Bank regarding home insurance and that the Bank breached a fiduciary duty to them by failing to caution them about the lack of insurance upon mortgage renewal.

Both defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court found no fiduciary duty existed between Primmum and the Bank, nor between the Bank and the plaintiffs, as their relationship was purely commercial.

The court also held that the plaintiffs' claims against the Bank were barred by res judicata, as the issues were previously litigated or ought to have been, and were statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

Furthermore, the claims against Primmum failed due to the effective termination or lapse of the insurance policy.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims against both defendants.

The applicant sought appointment as guardian of property for her minor son, Michael, for the sale of a Quebec condominium and for the general management of his inheritance.

The Children's Lawyer, acting as Michael's litigation guardian, agreed to the appointment for the condominium sale but opposed general guardianship, advocating for the inheritance to be paid to the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice due to risks associated with RESPs and the administrative burden of private guardianship.

The court granted the applicant guardianship solely for the condominium sale and ordered Michael's inheritance to be paid to the Accountant, finding this to be in the minor's best interests.

The plaintiff, Chase Wong, brought a motion seeking interim injunctive relief and other interim relief under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Wong alleged a verbal agreement for a 50% shareholding in the defendant corporation, which owned three residential properties.

The court found a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged verbal agreement.

However, the request for interlocutory injunctive relief to prevent the sale, encumbrance, or major renovations of the properties was dismissed, as Wong failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be quantified in monetary terms.

A request for a declaration of constructive trust was also dismissed as it amounted to a final determination.

Despite this, the court granted interim non-injunctive relief, ordering the defendant corporation to remain the owner of the properties, account for income and expenses, and be precluded from using the properties as security (except for reasonable repair/renovation) without Wong's consent or a further court order.

An existing undertaking preventing the sale of properties remained in force until the terms of a detailed interim order could be finalized.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, ex parte motion in writing for a certificate of pending litigation to be registered on the title of the home she shared with the deceased.

The plaintiff claimed an interest in the property based on a constructive trust.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that serving the estate trustee was impracticable or unnecessary, noting ongoing communications between the parties.

The motion was adjourned to be brought on notice, with an interim order preventing the estate from agreeing to a closing date for the sale of the property without consent or court order.

The Moving Parties (10313033 Canada Inc., Madeleine Bonhomme, and Sameh Mansour) brought a motion to strike the counterclaim filed by Antranik Kechichian.

The counterclaim sought over $21M in damages, alleging conspiracy and other misconduct related to two changes in ownership of the Laurier Optical franchise system.

The Moving Parties argued the counterclaim was a collateral attack on Quebec Superior Court vesting orders, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and duplicative of other proceedings.

The court found the counterclaim to be a collateral attack on the vesting orders and frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

It also found no reasonable cause of action against Bonhomme and Mansour in their personal capacities, except for specific claims related to unpaid rent.

The counterclaim was struck in its entirety against 10313033 Canada Inc. and largely against Bonhomme and Mansour, with the claims for unpaid rent against the individuals adjourned for further determination.

The plaintiffs, Bruce and Francine Cowley, brought a motion seeking a ruling that the defendants were not entitled to deduct long-term disability (LTD) benefits received by Mr. Cowley from any damages awarded for economic losses.

The plaintiffs argued that the LTD insurer's right of subrogation or the private insurance exception precluded such a deduction.

The court struck the plaintiffs' solicitor affidavits for failing to meet evidentiary standards but proceeded to rule on the legal issues.

The court held that the existence of a right of subrogation, whether equitable or contractual, is a complete bar to the defendants' request for a deduction of LTD benefits from economic loss damages.

The court also found that sections 30(14)-(15) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act were not relevant to this determination.

The applicant sought costs of $34,160 on a full recovery basis against a third-party witness who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to be questioned prior to trial.

The third party argued he was a non-party and sought his own costs.

The court found the third party was a party for the purposes of the motion under the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the respective offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $10,000.

The father sought to increase interim access to the children, aiming for equal parenting time, while the mother sought to reduce the father's access and requested additional terms regarding parental conduct and the children's dietary restrictions.

The court dismissed both parents' requests to vary the duration of interim access, maintaining the existing schedule from a prior interim agreement.

However, the mother's requests for specific conduct terms, including adherence to dietary restrictions and rules against discussing adult issues with children or disparaging the other parent, were granted.

The court emphasized the children's best interests, the need for stability, and the parties' inability to consistently follow agreed-upon terms due to high conflict.

The court issued a costs endorsement following post-trial motions concerning the assignment of Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits, pre-judgment interest (PJI) rates, and tax treatment of LTD benefits.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs for these motions, while the plaintiff argued for each party to bear their own costs, citing legal developments and novelty of arguments.

The court awarded the defendant $8,000 in partial indemnity costs for the PJI portion of Motion 1, finding the plaintiff's argument on PJI not novel.

For the assignment and tax treatment issues (Motion 1 and Motion 2), the court found both parties responsible for the lack of agreement and ordered them to bear their own costs.

The court also addressed costs for preserving the plaintiff's LTD rights, which were to be paid by Aviva on a full indemnity scale, with quantum to be resolved by the parties or fixed by the court.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion to set aside or discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court had previously found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the original ex parte motion for the certificate, but that the certificate would have been granted anyway.

The defendants argued against costs due to the disclosure failure.

The court reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge, citing divided success on the motion (plaintiff won on substantive issue, defendants won on disclosure finding), the reasonableness of the defendants' motion, the early stage of the action, and the potential for litigation conduct to be a factor at trial.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a third-party insurer ranked first in priority for coverage and was obligated to defend the action.

The third-party insurer denied coverage.

The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the proper use of discovery transcripts in motions.

Ultimately, the court found it could not determine the substantive insurance coverage dispute without further submissions on its jurisdiction to interpret a Quebec-issued policy and the applicable Quebec law.

The motion was adjourned sine die.

This endorsement sets out the procedural parameters for costs submissions following a previous ruling on a motion for the preservation of witness evidence.

The parties and a non-party witness had resolved the procedural issues regarding the recording of the witness's evidence, making a further court appearance unnecessary.

The court directed that written costs submissions, limited to four pages exclusive of a bill of costs, must comply with Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with specific deadlines for delivery by the parties and the witness.