Teodora Obradovic

This is a costs and interest decision in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff contractor (LMB) obtained judgment for an earned and unpaid amount of $172,740.47 but failed to prove a timely lien.

The defendant (200) had its counterclaim dismissed and the lien was declared expired.

LMB sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while 200 sought partial indemnity costs or no costs.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs to LMB and addressed the calculation of prejudgment interest under the parties' contract.

An appeal from an arbitrator's decision in a long-running dispute between law firms regarding a Professional Services Agreement.

The appellants challenged the arbitrator's handling of a solicitor-client privilege objection to spreadsheets and her refusal to remove respondents' counsel who received the allegedly privileged documents.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision to dismiss the privilege motion while reserving the right to reconsider the issue after further evidence, and upheld the decision not to remove counsel.

The court found the arbitrator acted within her discretion and applied the law reasonably to the circumstances.

This decision resolves a dispute over the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of the Boundary Lake Property, an asset of Maple Pond Farm Limited.

The plaintiff, Gordon Vellenga, sought equal division of the proceeds between himself and Peter Boersma, the two shareholders.

The defendants, including Weijs Investment Corp., sought priority reimbursement for various claims before any distribution.

The court found most of the defendants’ claims barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, or limitations, except for property taxes paid on the property.

The court ordered equal division of the proceeds, with a credit to Weijs Investment for property taxes paid.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of two construction lien actions brought by JCL Concrete Pumping Limited and Ontario Trucking and Disposal Ltd. against SEMA Railway Structures Inc. and Metrolinx.

The court addresses the parties’ submissions on costs, ultimately awarding substantial indemnity costs to SEMA, the successful party, and rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments for limiting or reducing costs.

The decision reviews the applicable statutory framework, the conduct of the parties, and the offers to settle, and finds that SEMA’s costs were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a motion for injunctive relief brought by Mondee, Inc. and related plaintiffs against Voyzant Inc. and several individual defendants.

The court granted limited injunctive relief to Mondee, primarily the return and destruction of its information, but dismissed broader relief sought against the defendants.

The court found that the defendants were more successful on the substantive issues and awarded costs to Voyzant Inc. and the non-Binning departing employees, while denying costs to Jasvinder Binning due to his conduct.

The court declined to award Mondee its costs, holding that costs should generally be reserved to the trial judge where a trial is likely.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

This decision concerns three related matters: the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. and related companies, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors.

The court finds the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver to be in the public interest and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The decision addresses the statutory and common law bases for receivership, the public interest in protecting investors, and the coordination of proceedings involving multiple stakeholders.

This endorsement addresses three related matters: the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver over the property of the respondents, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors in mortgages brokered and administered by Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court finds the appointment of a receiver to be in the public interest and just and convenient, and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The endorsement also sets out the background of the proceedings, the issues to be determined, and the reasons for the orders made.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a medical office building in Toronto was held as an asset of a partnership or as a tenancy in common.

The appellants, majority owners, sought a declaration of partnership and related relief, while the respondents argued for a sale under the Partition Act.

The Court upheld the motion judge’s finding that no partnership existed, but found error in the order dispensing with the appellants’ consent to the sale of the property.

The Court directed a reference to an associate judge for the sale and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

This decision concerns a construction lien action arising from a condominium project at 200 Woodbine Avenue, Toronto.

Elembe (LMB) Mechanical Ltd. claimed for unpaid contract work and extras, while Two Hundred Inc. counterclaimed for overpayment and deficiencies.

The court found that LMB had partially proved its claim for extras and was entitled to an earned and unpaid contract balance, but failed to prove that any amounts were due and payable as of the date it suspended work.

The court also found that LMB breached the contract by suspending and abandoning work, resulting in the expiry of its lien rights.

Two Hundred Inc. failed to prove its counterclaim for deficiencies.

Judgment was granted to LMB for the unpaid contract balance, but its lien was declared expired.

Following an appeal in a class proceeding, the parties and the Law Foundation of Ontario made a joint submission regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion judge found that the appellants failed to file a certification motion record or establish a timetable for steps required to advance the proceeding within one year of commencement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that while a contextual approach applies to determining whether a timetable for required steps was established, the one-year deadline is mandatory and no such timetable existed here.

The court also rejected arguments regarding waiver, the availability of a Phoenix order, and the effect of adding a new plaintiff.

The Arcádia Parties brought a motion to compel Alexey Kondratiev to attend an examination in aid of execution and produce documents to collect on three outstanding cost orders totaling $236,250.

The Kondratiev Parties brought a cross-motion to remove counsel for the Arcádia Parties (three of which are dissolved corporations) and to vacate writs of seizure and sale, arguing that the dissolved corporations lacked legal capacity to instruct counsel or receive payments.

The court granted the Arcádia Parties' motion, compelling the examination and document production, and dismissed the Kondratiev Parties' cross-motion, finding their arguments to be a transparent attempt to evade payment of costs.

The court awarded $20,000 in partial indemnity costs to the Arcádia Parties.

This judgment addresses two lien actions arising from bridge rehabilitation work.

The plaintiffs, JCL Concrete Pumping Limited and Ontario Trucking and Disposal Ltd., claimed breach of contract or, alternatively, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment against SEMA Railway Structures Inc. for materials and equipment supplied.

The central issue was whether a contract was formed between SEMA and the plaintiffs, or with "JCL Group Inc." The court found no contract between SEMA and the plaintiffs, concluding that SEMA reasonably believed it was contracting with JCL Group Inc. As the plaintiffs had unequivocally withdrawn their alternative claims in quantum meruit and unjust enrichment prior to trial, the court dismissed their actions and discharged their liens.

SEMA's set-off claim was also dismissed as it was contingent on a contract being found.

The plaintiff, BizTech Institute Inc., brought an action for damages against the defendant, Star Medical Equipment Ltd., concerning the purchase of two ultrasound machines.

BizTech, a private career college, alleged the equipment was defective from installation, requiring extensive servicing but never functioning properly for its sonography training programs.

This led to additional training costs for students and the eventual replacement of the equipment.

The defendant contended the equipment was not defective and that the plaintiff did not rely on their advice.

The court found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the equipment was defective and breached implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantability under the Sale of Goods Act.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff covering the cost of the equipment, financing fees, and student retraining costs.

This was a motion for a stay of an order issued by Akazaki J. following a summary judgment motion.

The appellants, who own 75% of a commercial property, sought to buy out the respondents, who own 25%, under the Partnerships Act.

The respondents counter-claimed for a sale under the Partition Act, which the motion judge granted, allowing them a unilateral 90-day period to sell the property.

The appellants sought a stay of this remedy pending their appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found the appeal had sufficient merit, particularly regarding the motion judge's imposition of an unrequested remedy.

Irreparable harm was established due to the risk of the appeal becoming moot if the property sale proceeded.

The balance of convenience also favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was granted, and costs were awarded to the appellants.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the defendants, CleanDesign Income Corp., CleanDesign Power Systems Inc., and Mark Lerohl, to remove the plaintiff's counsel, Fogler Rubinoff, due to a conflict of interest.

The court, having granted the motion to remove counsel, considered the parties' written submissions on costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 and the principle of indemnity, the court found that the successful defendants were entitled to costs.

Despite the plaintiff's arguments regarding the narrow grounds of success, conflicting caselaw, and the defendants' alleged contribution to complexity and higher fees, the court determined a fair and reasonable cost award.

The defendants brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel, Fogler Rubinoff, citing a conflict of interest due to the firm's prior representation of the defendants.

The plaintiff argued no conflict existed, no confidential information was at risk, and the motion was tactical.

The court found that the firm owed a duty of loyalty to its former client, Clean Power, and that the current action, particularly concerning restrictive covenants, was sufficiently related to the prior retainer.

The court dismissed arguments of delay or tactical motive and ordered Fogler Rubinoff removed as counsel.

The plaintiffs, including a corporate entity and Dr. Earl Schwartz, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a medical office building they co-owned with the defendants (Dr. Martin Schwartz and Susan Schwartz) was a partnership asset, and to compel the defendants to sell their share to the corporate plaintiff at an appraised value.

The defendants denied the existence of a partnership and sought a sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' partnership claim, finding that the co-owners did not operate the building as a business with a view to profit, but rather primarily for their own professional use at cost.

The court ordered the sale of the property by the defendants on the open market and determined a financial reconciliation for ownership expenses, to be paid from the sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages was also dismissed.