Teodora Obradovic

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.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the applicant to appoint an investigative receiver-monitor and for interim disbursements in a complex corporate/family dispute.

Although most issues were settled just before the scheduled hearing, the court found compelling reasons to award costs to the applicant due to the respondents' litigation conduct, including failure to provide proper financial disclosure and late capitulation on key issues.

The applicant was deemed the successful party, having secured the appointment of their proposed receiver and interim disbursements of $1 million.

The court awarded $125,000 in costs to the applicant, balancing the applicant's success against the proportionality of the fees incurred, and declined to order joint and several liability as requested, preserving the issue for trial.

Following the successful motion to quash the tenant's appeal as an abuse of process, the landlord sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,264.74.

The tenant made no submissions on costs.

The court noted the tenant's conduct lengthened the proceedings but also recognized that some additional time was related to the tenant's requests for accommodation due to mobility issues.

The court reduced the requested amount and ordered the tenant to pay costs of $13,000 to the landlord.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned commercial real estate corporation, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholder and the corporation.

The applicant alleged oppression regarding the provision of financial information, the triggering of a shotgun buy-sell clause while the application was pending, and improper disbursements made to the majority shareholder.

The court found no oppression regarding the information provision or the shotgun clause, concluding the applicant was not entitled to an additional sum for her shares beyond the designated price.

However, the court found the majority shareholder's receipt of improper disbursements was oppressive and ordered an equalization payment of $154,717 to the applicant.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court, triggering an automatic stay of eviction.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that it raised no question of law and was an abuse of process, as the tenant had not paid rent since the eviction order.

The court denied the tenant's request to cross-examine the landlord's affiant, finding it untimely and irrelevant.

The court quashed the appeal, finding it was devoid of merit as it raised no genuine questions of law, and held that maintaining the stay without paying rent constituted an abuse of process.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs for the entire action after successfully moving to dismiss the proposed class action for delay.

The plaintiffs argued the costs claimed were excessive and that previous steps had already been addressed by prior costs rulings.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' response to the motion did not warrant an elevated scale.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs for the delay motion and reimbursement for mediation disbursements, fixing costs at $125,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant, Diamond & Diamond Lawyers LLP, brought a motion to dismiss a class proceeding for delay, arguing that the plaintiffs, William Tataryn and Daya Nand Rajan, failed to comply with section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken the required steps towards certification within the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that their efforts to amend faulty pleadings constituted progress under s. 29.1 or that the defendant had waived its rights.

The court also dismissed the request for a "Phoenix" order, which would allow a new action to be started, deeming it contrary to the policy of s. 29.1.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Humi Holdings Corporation, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new company from competing and using alleged confidential information to develop an embedded payroll software product.

The court admitted expert evidence from both sides.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the non-competition clauses were enforceable or breached, or that confidential information was misused.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored the defendants.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The applicant sought specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase the respondents' shares in a corporation involved in the Thai medical cannabis industry.

The court found that the email correspondence between the parties constituted an agreement in principle, but not a binding contract, as essential terms regarding due diligence and disclosure remained unresolved.

However, the court found that a subsequent rights offering proposed by the respondents, which would have significantly diluted the applicant's minority shareholding at a below-market price, was oppressive.

The application for specific performance was dismissed, but the rights offering was permanently enjoined.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated April 13, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,874.14.